Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Thursday 27 February.

ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Order for consideration read.

To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Education, Northumberland

Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about education in Northumberland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Fallon): We have received a number of representations, and on Tuesday 11 February I met a deputation which included the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).

Mr. Beith: Has the Minister accepted the argument which was put strongly to him and to which he listened carefully that day, that it makes no sense for Northumberland to be forced by Government spending restrictions to cut £3·5 million from its education budget when it spends less per pupil than most other authorities? Will the Minister respond urgently to the constructive plea that was put to him for help through which Northumberland could ease those budgetary restrictions this year and, of course, for an eventual change in that system?

Mr. Fallon: I am looking at the specific points that were made by the delegation to me earlier this month. However, Northumberland's education spending allocation has increased by 24 per cent. over the past two years, and I see no need for any of the cuts that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Mr. Amos: Does not my hon. Friend find it outrageous that Labour-controlled Northumberland county council has refused to accept economies of nearly £1·5 million, as identified by the Conservative and Liberal groups, and has refused to take enough money out of balances to avoid any education cuts, but at the same time it can find thousands of pounds to issue supplements in the Hexham Courant for party political propaganda to promote the leader of the

county council, who happens to be a prospective Labour party candidate? Moreover, Labour councillors do not defend their actions; they put the county treasurer up to do it and then give him a £4,000 salary increase.

Mr. Fallon: Yes. Northumberland's Labour council leader appears to be trying to use parents and governors to further his prospective parliamentary career in Hexham by frightening people into thinking that those cuts are necessary. I repeat that there is no need for any school budget in Northumberland to be cut. The council's overall spending can rise by 5·4 per cent. in April before Northumberland risks charge capping.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Is the Minister aware that due to the cuts that he has imposed on Northumberland county council—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 200 teachers are about to lose their jobs, with the result that class sizes in Northumberland will increase and under this Government the education service will take a dip?

Mr. Fallon: I think that it is now obvious to the whole House that Northumberland is playing politics with its education budget. I repeat that there is no need for any school budget in Northumberland to be cut at a time when its overall expenditure can increase by 5·4 per cent. before it risks charge capping.

Surplus School Places

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to intervene where local education authorities fail to take action to reduce surplus school places.

Mr. Fallon: The Government continue to press local education authorities to remove surplus places, since only they can make proposals for reorganisation. Our latest survey of school capacity shows that Wolverhampton has nearly 12,000 surplus places. We estimate that it will cost Wolverhampton more than £2 million a year to keep them empty.

Mrs. Hicks: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Pressing is not enough. Unfortunately, the Labour-controlled council in Wolverhampton continues to ignore our pressing. Does my hon. Friend agree that that money should be intended for pupils? Will he please come to the rescue of Wolverhampton parents and, if need be, intervene to ensure that Wolverhampton council manages education and does not waste money?

Mr. Fallon: I shall consider that point. Wolverhampton has the fifth highest overheads of any education authority in England. Its administration consumes more than 5 per cent. of its schools budget. Its education bureaucracy appears to cost £100 per pupil, compared with £30 next door in Solihull. At present Wolverhampton appears to employ more non-teaching staff than teachers under its education budget.

Mr. Straw: Does the Under-Secretary understand that if the Government had not embarked on the wholly cynical and two-faced policy of enticing schools with surplus places to opt out, the children at Stratford school would not now face chaos? Given that the Secretary of State's own appointed governor, the former chief inspector, Eric Bolton, said that the situation at the school


is "unsatisfactory" and that the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers said that pupils and staff at Stratford school are "disturbed", does the Minister recognise that the Secretary of State's statement last week that Stratford school was "operating satisfactorily" had no basis in fact and could come only from a Secretary of State who sought to evade, rather than take, the responsibility which was plainly his?

Mr. Fallon: Let me give the hon. Gentleman some facts. Of the 143 grant-maintained schools to which he referred and which have been approved so far, only 23 were named in reorganisation or closure proposals. As for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the grant-maintained school policy might be paralysing the production of reorganisation proposals, let me tell the hon. Gentleman that in the past 12 months 150 proposals for school reorganisations were received and some 93 have so far been approved. No such proposals have been made by Wolverhampton.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the state of affairs to which he referred in Wolverhampton has continued for about 10 years now? Has not the Labour-controlled local authority frequently made proposals for reorganisations, knowing that they would be rejected because they were highly partisan? Would it not be a good thing if the Government explained to the people of Wolverhampton, perhaps even by taking an advertisement in the Express and Star, that the gross overspending has continued year after year because Wolverhampton council has seen education in terms of employing people in schools, not in terms of providing good education?

Mr. Fallon: I can tell my hon. Friend that 17 of Wolverhampton's 18 secondary schools have surplus places. It is high time that Wolverhampton got round to proposing some reorganisations. As for Wolverhampton's budget, there was a serious overrun last year of some £2 million, including on the operation of something called the Jennie Lee centre. The working party's report said that the overrun on that centre
generally reflected policy instructions that no additional cost should be involved but in specifics turned out not to be manageable".

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Exceptionally, in terms of balance, I call Mr. Dennis Turner.

Mr. Turner: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker. All the interventions from the Conservative Front Bench will not save the seat of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks).

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member deal with education in Wolverhampton?

Mr. Turner: Yes, I definitely want to do that. First, I want to draw the attention of the House—[Interruption.] I want to ask the Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Come on.

Mr. Turner: I want to ask the Minister why his two Back-Bench colleagues from Wolverhampton did not nominate the schools which they would wish to see closed or from which they would like to have surplus places taken away. In addition, I accept that the Minister is new to his

Front-Bench position. Wolverhampton has already submitted two proposals for surplus places and they have been rejected by the Government.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That question was not out of order. It provided a balance.

Mr. Fallon: It is clear to the House from that sort of defence that Wolverhampton, even by the standards of Labour councils, is a pretty dreadful education authority, with the fifth highest overheads in England. Parents in Wolverhampton will want to know why the paperwork cost is £100 per pupil there, compared with only £30 per pupil down the road in Solihull.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) wants to raise the matter, she could raise it on the Adjournment.

Mrs. Hicks: Yes; thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Science

Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much his Department plans to spend on science in 1992–93.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): In 1992–93 the science budget will total £1,050 million.

Mr. Strang: I direct the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the Government's overall spending on research and development. Will he address himself to the fact that no less than 44 per cent. of all Government-funded research and development has a military purpose and next year that figure is due to rise to 48 per cent? How can that be right?

Mr. Clarke: Obviously, military research is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but I am sure that he would argue, as I would, that there is considerable civilian spin-off from all the advances made in the development of military equipment, and that includes the consequences for the electronics industry and others. I have just described the level of the science budget in my Department, which is spent for civil research purposes on environmental, medical, scientific, engineering, economic and social research. That amount has just passed £1 billion per annum for the first time, representing a real terms increase of 2·5 per cent. this year, and we have given the research councils a rising profile for expenditure in future years. We are also expanding our efforts in civil science. The defence expenditure to which the hon. Gentleman referred has considerable benefits for the scientific world and for British industry.

Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, no matter how large the science budget of his Department may be, it will be a great waste of money in the future if there are no young people interested in science? Does he agree that when Kent County Engineering Society recently held a seminar for primary school heads and local businesses, it turned out that not a single local business had thought of trying to interest


primary school children in science and engineering. Surely, it is at that age that interest has to be aroused because later those subjects will fall on the other side of the divide.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We have to interest more young people in scientific and engineering education and training. The development of the national curriculum will do a great deal to stimulate more interest in science because more pupils will have to sustain well-judged scientific programmes of study until at least the age of 16. Although we have now developed good links between business and secondary schools where companies try to interest pupils, we do not yet have enough tie-ups between primary schools and local businesses. I agree that more businesses should contemplate approaching younger children and at an early stage arousing their interest in what science or engineering may hold for them.

Dr. Bray: Will the Secretary of State keep in this country what James Watson, the discoverer of the DNA basis of the genetic code, has described as the jewel in the crown of British science? Will he authorise the Medical Research Council to plan on the basis that the funding needed by Dr. John Sulston of the laboratory of molecular biology of Cambridge will be available to keep in this country work on the nematode project, as that work is the foundation of the human genome project which is the foundation of the future of medical research and biotechnology? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the United States has made a bid for that work? If funding is not available, and it cannot be found within the present budget, the Secretary of State will be guilty of the loss of that work?

Mr. Clarke: With the greatest respect, it would be a pathetic science policy that suggested that the Secretary of State of the day should intervene to give funds to named scientists—whose names, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman picked up from cuttings in the learned journals. Science nowadays is an international community and British science is pre-eminent in the world. We are one of the leading science nations and we attract many more talented people to this country than we lose. It is no good citing one or two cases. The Medical Research Council will no doubt consider particular claims on scientific merits to counter the fact that Britain has achieved great success in science because of the increasing sums that the Government have made available for that purpose.

Mr. Hill: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the best universities in the United Kingdom for scientific research is Southampton university? It is second to none and it is grateful that the figures that have been released today show that it will receive 10·2 per cent. of its budget for research. I am sure that that money will be used with the utmost effect to promote more and more scientific developments at Southampton university.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right to remind us that the Universities Funding Council has considerable funds which it receives from the Government and distributes partially for research-based purposes. This year, the funds have been allocated very much according to the UFC's grading of the quality of research carried out at each university. I congratulate Southampton university on its

success in obtaining funds way ahead of the rate of inflation in order to sustain and increase the work that it carries out.

Further Education Programmes

Mr. McMaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to improve access, facilities and learning programmes in the further education service for people with disabilities and/or learning difficulties.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): The Further and Higher Education Bill currently before Parliament will ensure that a wide range of educational provision for students with disabilities and learning difficulties is maintained and developed in the new further education sector.

Mr. McMaster: Does the Minister agree that life-long education is a right, not a privilege, and that it should not be any less of a right just because a person happens to be disabled? Is the Minister aware that many disabled people are concerned that their rights will be reduced if further education colleges are taken out of local authority control? Does the Minister agree with the almost unanimous view of the disability lobby that the best way to protect the rights of disabled people would be to introduce anti-discrimination legislation now?

Mr. Howarth: I can offer the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he seeks. The Bill places clear duties on the further education funding councils to cater for people with learning difficulties and those councils will be required to allocate resources to discharge those duties. It is for the councils to determine how they distribute funding, but the Bill gives the councils wide powers to be used in support of students with special education needs. The Government will ensure that no less than the existing level of resources will continue to be available in the new further education structure and that funding will be apportioned between local education authorities and the funding councils in line with their responsibilities for securing the provision of further education.

Binary Divide

Mr. Edwards: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the consequences for research funding of ending the binary divide.

Mr. Alan Howarth: The new framework for higher education will require funding for basic and strategic research in each subject to be allocated selectively to high-quality departments. All institutions will be free to compete for selective research funding.

Mr. Edwards: I am grateful to the Minister, but is there not a danger that there could be an unfair distribution of funding research between the new universities, which will be formed from polytechnics, and the traditional universities? Is there not concern that there could be inequity in the distribution of research funding to Welsh and English institutions? What will the Minister do to ensure that Wales gets a fair deal in research?

Mr. Howarth: The Government's policy remains as set out in the White Paper on higher education. Funding will be based on an assessment of individual departments. Some departments in an institution will do well, while others will do less well, according to the assessment of their research quality. But institutions right across the new unified higher education sector will be free to compete on fair terms, and the same will apply in Wales.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that universities with a strong research base need fear nothing from the end of the binary divide? Does he further accept that the Universities Funding Council has acknowledged the excellence of research at Lancaster university by giving it a 10·9 per cent. increase in funding for the coming year?

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. The Universities Funding Council is carrying out the policy, in response to the White Paper, of distributing funding according to assessments of research quality department by department. I share my hon. Friend's pleasure and offer my congratulations to Lancaster university on achieving a 10·9 per cent. increase in research funding for the forthcoming year.

Mr. Andrew Smith: Does the Minister appreciate that, with the phasing out of the student-related element of university research funding, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is actively canvassing the introduction of top-up fees? I understand that Birmingham university council is due to consider the matter tomorrow. Will the Government take action to stop the charging of top-up fees, or will they allow universities to go down the road of pay-as-you-learn?

Mr. Howarth: I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would respect the principle of academic autonomy. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot profess, as he likes to do, his respect for the autonomy of academic institutions and at the same time seek to limit their management discretion. I emphasise that we believe, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has said, that top-up fees should be unnecessary because we have planned, and continue to plan, to provide sufficient public funding to support the expansion of high-quality teaching in our universities. Moreover, we regard such fees as undesirable because we are keen that there should be no avoidable barriers to access on the part of people who have not traditionally had the opportunity to go into higher education.

Technical Education

Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress is being made in the promotion of technical education.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the building and equipment needs for technical education.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): The Government are promoting technical and vocational education through a wide range of measures. They include the introduction of technology as a subject for all pupils from the age of five to 16 and of an improved range of vocational qualifications; the

establishment of city technology colleges and of a network of technology schools; and new freedom and flexibility for our further education colleges.

Mr. Stevens: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the £25 million technology schools initiative to further technical education in schools. Does he agree that such initiatives help to give young people a better start and help to provide the type of recruits needed by industry? Does he further agree that Labour Members' knee-jerk opposition to city technology colleges shows their obsession with standardisation rather than with improving the quality of education in schools?

Mr. Eggar: I agree with my hon. Friend about the widespread support for the technology schools initiative, with 89 local education authorities having submitted bids. In addition, in a number of LEA areas where it had been decided, mainly for doctrinaire reasons, not to submit bids, we have received individual bids from schools.
Further to my hon. Friend's final remarks, it should come as no surprise to him or to anybody else that Labour Members are opposed to choice. They are committed to abolishing city technology schools, grammar schools and the assisted places scheme, and they have no time for parental choice.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Does my hon. Friend share with me some anger that 19 Labour authorities still have not even bothered to bid for the funds that are available? Does he agree that that contrasts with the breath of fresh air that is now flowing through our universities and polytechnics? The universities have attracted large sums—more than £700 million of additional funding—for the current year, and our polytechnics likewise, now that they are independent of the stifling hand of Labour authorities— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must be brief.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will the Minister pledge total support for the Nottingham city technology college for doing just what our young people and the nation need?

Mr. Eggar: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I visited the Djanogly college and was impressed with the quality of education offered to so many young people. It was interesting to note that so many heads of secondary schools, in Nottinghamshire and elsewhere, are coming to see what has been achieved at Djanogly college and to learn the lessons from it. With regard to bids to become technology schools, my hon. Friend will be heartened by the quality of the bids that we have received from individual schools, including some exceptionally good schools in Labour-controlled areas.

Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister accept that, as there are now 50 different definitions of a professional engineer, it is unrealistic for the Minister's Department to tell Newcastle council, which put in two bids for technology schools, that it should have submitted only one. Does the Minister agree that, to tackle such antique snobbery, two bids from one city should be allowed?

Mr. Eggar: I shall look into the matter because I recognise that Newcastle is a Labour authority that has put aside its doctrinaire opposition to technology schools. So far as I am aware, Newcastle local education authority


is as free to submit two bids to the Department as any other local education authority. I assure the hon. Gentleman that those bids, when received, will be evaluated in comparison with other bids. If he is genuinely concerned that Newcastle has been prevented from putting in more than one bid, I shall look into the matter for him.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister not think it unfair to spend £7 million on a city technology college in Bradford, when that amount equals the sum spent on the nearly 300 publicly owned schools in Bradford? As the Minister should know, those schools are very much in need of large-scale capital expenditure. Many of them are of a Victorian standard and need considerable investment. Does he agree that the schools in Bradford provide a perfectly good technical education and that they need to be built on and improved, rather than being attacked by diverting public funds into city technology colleges?

Mr. Eggar: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has visited the city technology college in Bradford. Indeed, he has refused invitations to do so. That college provides an excellent education to many pupils in Bradford. Parents are extremely keen to have their children admitted to the college because they want them to take advantage of the excellent education that it offers. The hon. Gentleman should take more time to encourage schools in Bradford to learn the lessons from the city technology college to improve the quality of technology education in Bradford. He should also have words with his colleague, Councillor John Ryan, who needs to improve the quality of his submissions to my Department for funding from central Government.

Mrs. Currie: rose—

Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Currie: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the finest technical education in Europe is given to the 7,000 students of the Derbyshire college of higher education? Its bid to become a polytechnic has been supported for many years by Conservative Members from Derbyshire. Is my hon. Friend aware that, as polytechnics are to disappear, we now support its bid to become a university? Will he ensure that everything possible is done so that Derbyshire can have its first opportunity to have a university, in contrast with Nottingham which will have two, Leicester which will have three, and Loughborough which will have one? At present, Derbyshire has none.

Mr. Eggar: I am aware of the strong support from my hon. Friend and other Derbyshire Members for that development. The position has been clearly explained to the college in Derby and I am sure that it will pursue the opportunities.

Primary Education

Mr. Bidwell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has arising out of the report on primary education by Alexander, Rose and Woodhead.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I commissioned the report to stimulate debate within the teaching profession and in primary schools about how best to deliver the national

curriculum and to raise standards. The effective introduction of the national curriculum will require changes in practice in many schools and the report will assist the teachers concerned in planning the necessary changes.

Mr. Bidwell: I welcome the right and learned Gentleman to the Dispatch Box—I did not think that he was going to answer this question as he looked a bit tired sitting on the Bench there. I am glad that he did answer it, as I wanted to ask him this: has he learnt any lessons from the report, particularly those related to ability streaming? He is known to have favoured that, but it is rejected by the report as a
a crude device which cannot do justice to the different abilities a pupil may show in different subjects and contexts".

Mr. Clarke: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has read the report. If he were to read it with a less selective eye, he would benefit considerably. He would discover that the report advocates the grouping of pupils according to ability in many circumstances, in order to place the pupil in a specific ability group for a particular purpose as that is a more flexible device for teaching older children in a number of subjects. I hope that he and other members of the Labour party will eventually be talked out of their past commitment to mixed ability teaching at all levels, for, as the three wise men have confirmed, that is not suitable for delivering the broad and balanced curriculum at which the Government are aiming.

Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that Conservative Members welcome the report of the three wise men? Does he further agree that the report condemns the trendy, discredited methods put forward by Labour and calls for a return to traditional teaching? What plans does my right hon. and learned Friend have to implement the report, and what is the time scale likely to be?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. The report stated that the progress of primary pupils had been hampered by the influence of highly questionable dogmas, which had led to excessively complex classroom practices and devalued the place of subjects in the curriculum.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the Labour party has been closely associated with the development of those dogmas over many years. We are circulating the report to all primary schools so that primary school teachers can benefit from its advice. The National Curriculum Council will take account of the report in monitoring and reviewing the manageability of the national curriculum. The Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education is to advise me on the implications of the report for primary initial teacher training in future. I intend to use the report to review the present arrangements for the induction of newly qualified teachers and in-service training. Considerable changes are required in classroom practice in many of our primary schools if we are to raise standards to the levels demanded by today's society and parents. The Government are determined to raise those standards, and the report will be a valuable instrument to enable us to do so.

Ms. Armstrong: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is now evidence that standards in the basics, which the report identified as the key skills on which other learning depends, have fallen? Does he further accept that


the report identifies that there has been serious disturbance in primary schools in recent years? Will he abandon his ideological dictation from the centre and work with teachers to bring in the changes in the curriculum for which the report calls?

Mr. Clarke: First, I personally do not accept that there is any evidence such as the hon. Lady describes. I find it odd that the position has so changed compared with 15 months ago when I became Secretary of State, when some Conservative Members were alleging that standards had declined and Opposition Members were denying those allegations. The recent report of the National Foundation for Educational Research did not attribute any decline to the national curriculum; the interpretation placed on it by the hon. Lady and her hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) is based on a deliberate misreading of the report.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Secretary of State explain how he was able to commission a review of teaching methods in a matter of a few weeks, although his minimum standards—first laid down in 1981—were not met in the 10 years that the Government allowed themselves, and the current review will not now report until the autumn? Is it fair to assume that, in this general election year, the right hon. and learned Gentleman expects the review to lead to a cut in the Government's minimum standards for education facilities, designed to meet the requirements of the national curriculum?

Mr. Clarke: Most of the minimum standards have been met. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the review will go ahead in the autumn.
The reason why the "three wise men" report was produced so quickly is that the three people whom I invited to deliver it—Mr. Alexander, Mr. Rose and Mr. Woodhead—had behind them a lifetime of experience and close involvement with primary schools, and they were able to distil that lifetime's knowledge very rapidly. As far as I am aware, no one has criticised my choice of those three experts, or challenged their conclusions. It is slightly absurd for people to pretend that the "three wise men" report is anything other than a valuable contribution to the raising of standards in our schools.

City Technology Colleges

Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many pupils attend city technology colleges.

Mr. Eggar: Currently, we estimate that there are some 8,000 pupils benefiting from a CTC education.

Mr. Bowden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that city technology colleges provide a real alternative education for children in the inner city? Is he aware that in south-east London—and serving my Dulwich constituency—is Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college, which has received more than 800 applications for 180 places? Is that not proof positive that CTCs are popular both with parents and with pupils?

Mr. Eggar: I agree. The popularity of all the CTCs is beyond challenge. Despite deep and unremitting opposition from, in particular, the Labour-controlled councils of Lewisham and Southwark, Haberdashers' Aske's CTC has

succeeded in attracting an overwhelming amount of interest from parents. My only regret is that the college is not able to take more of my hon. Friend's constituents.

Mr. Flannery: Surely the Minister—and all the other Ministers and other Tory Members—know that the CTCs are really private schools, siphoning off millions of pounds of public money. Is it not true—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) pointed out—that as much public money goes to one CTC, to which parents who have not gone through the normal process will have access, as to all the other schools in the area, and that it goes there at the same rate? The other schools have to share little or nothing while the city technology college gets the lot—and it is public money.

Mr. Eggar: I imagine that this may well be the hon. Gentleman's last contribution to Education Question Time. I note that his question was as full of ideological claptrap as all the others that he has asked during his career in the House.

Further Education

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress is being made with plans to give further education and sixth-form colleges more independence.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Excellent progress is being made with our plans, which are the subject of the Further and Higher Education Bill currently before Parliament, to give colleges independence from local authority control.

Mr. Amess: Following the visit of our hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) to Basildon last Friday, will my right hon. and learned Friend endorse our hon. Friend's statement that the independence that we are offering colleges of further education and sixth-form colleges such as Basildon's will enable them to be more effective, efficient and flexible than they can be at present? Will my right hon. and learned Friend agree to visit Basildon this year to observe the excellent education standards enjoyed by my constituents?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend the Minister of State was very impressed by his visit to Basildon, and I should certainly be interested in visiting it myself if and when my diary allowed it.
I have visited sixth-form colleges in Thurrock and Boston this year, and I recently addressed the annual meeting of the Association of Colleges for Further and Higher Education. I agree that the colleges are looking forward to their independence and to expanding the opportunities for further education available to our young people. I find that they bitterly regret the Labour party's dogmatic commitment to repeal, contrary to the wishes of the college principals, the Bill going through the House precisely because the Opposition Front Bench are acting at the behest of a few backwoodsmen Labour county councillors throughout the country.

Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State will be aware that further education colleges charge their students for certain activities related to the curriculum—not tuition fees, but other activities. When the Bill goes through, if it does, sixth-form colleges will have the same freedom. Will the Secretary of State now give a guarantee that no sixth-form


college student will be charged for activities in relation to the school curriculum, or is this to be yet another example of pay-as-you-learn under the Conservative Government?

Mr. Clarke: I know of no realistic reason for expecting any sixth-form college to introduce charges of the kind described. Sixth-form colleges will be funded on the basis that they carry on with their present practice. I have not met a college principal who intends to change that practice. The hon. Gentleman is merely trying to raise obscure scares about our proposals when he knows from his own visit to the association that the policy is extremely popular with all the principals and that his statement—that the colleges would be given back to his friends in Labour councils—was greeted with widespread dismay there.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Kilfoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Kilfoyle: The Prime Minister recently told the House that the British economy had grown faster than any other in Europe, when it has not; he said that the Japanese economy was in recession, when it is not; and he said that German unemployment was over 3 million, when it is not. Given that series of gaffes, will he now compound his confusion and tell us that he bears no personal responsibility for the appalling slump that is devastating Britain today?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a recession in a number of countries. I quote from what Sir Allen Sheppard of Grand Met said yesterday:
One thing which no one could predict a year ago was exactly how long the recession would last … This recession has not been an exclusively British phenomenon—as some people would have us believe. It is a worldwide problem; only last week we heard the news that Europe's strongest economy, Germany, had slowed down.
Those are not my words, but those of Sir Allen Sheppard of Grand Met.

Sir Peter Blaker: Will my right hon. Friend consult his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about the attempt being made to steal the emblem of the duchy? Is he aware that on a previous occasion when such an attempt was made, the miscreant —an imposter named Lambert Simnel, who attempted to steal the red rose from King Henry VII wasnot only defeated but sentenced to serve as a scullion in the royal kitchens? What does my right hon. Friend think would be the appropriate sentence now?

The Prime Minister: It is difficult to find anything entirely appropriate. Perhaps continuous service as Leader of the Opposition would do.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister recall saying a short time ago in his personal statement—in this document from the Conservative party—that "if" Government
borrowing takes the strain, taxes … have to go up

Does he still take that view?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I was Chief Secretary for two years and Chancellor for one year. Because of the repayments that were made of borrowing during that period, in the midst of a recession we are now in a better position to borrow prudently—[Interruption.] than we have been at any stage in the past: to borrow prudently and to maintain our commitment to a balanced budget in the medium term. Before the right hon. Gentleman reflects further, he may recall that the borrowing requirement was 91 per cent. of GDP under the last Labour Government—the equivalent to borrowing today £55 billion.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister is now borrowing billions to try to finance a pre-election tax cut, so will he tell us exactly which other taxes he would raise to pay for the bribe?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that I cannot prejudge my right hon. Friend's Budget, and I have no intention of doing so. He should also realise that tax is levied on people's own money: it does not belong to the Government; it is their money that the Government compulsorily take away from them in taxation. Taxation levels determine how much. We know that the right hon. Gentleman would add to taxation, for he needs to in order to sustain his promises.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister said a very short time ago that "If" Government
borrowing takes the strain, taxes—not just our taxes"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "We have heard this before."] And you are going to hear it again: "If" Government
borrowing takes the strain, taxes—not just our taxes but the next generation's too—have to go up.
Does not the Prime Minister think that he owes it to the country to say exactly which other taxes he would put up to pay for his bribe?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should have done a little more research. If he had done a little more research and had seen the evidence that I gave to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in 1987, he would have seen then—when we had a fiscal surplus of many billions—that I indicated that it would be right, in a downturn, to borrow money in a recession. Would the right hon. Gentleman prefer to do what Labour last did —cut the hospital building programme and cut the other programmes? That is what it did before.

Mr. William Powell: I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to Corby last Friday to open the magnificent Brooke city technology college. Does he agree that this type of secondary school has a substantial part to play in the future education of our children in the secondary sector, and will he encourage the development of further city technology colleges in our country?

The Prime Minister: I certainly enjoyed my visit to the Brooke city technology college last week. It is an excellent establishment and has attracted a good deal of support and resources from the private sector. I think that that is the sort of choice that parents want for their children, and it widens the opportunities in education. It is inexplicable to me that the Labour party would wish to stop this continuing and successful experiment.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tueday 25 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Ewing: As the Prime Minister has now had time to appreciate the significance that Scots attach to the phrase "taking stock", will he elaborate on what that means in the Scottish constitutional set-up? Is it an affirmation of what his junior energy Minister says: that it will be acceptable for the Scottish Office to be staffed by Members from constituencies south of the border, or of what his Foreign Secretary and Secretary of State for Scotland have said in the past 24 hours: that nothing will happen, or is he considering the possibility of affording the Scottish people the right to determine their own future in a democratic fashion'? Will there be a referendum or any other mechanism to establish a Scottish Parliament?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady's party seeks isolation for Scotland. I do not believe that that prescription is in the interests of Scotland or of the rest of the United Kingdom. I said that we would be taking stock, and I meant precisely that—taking stock on the basis of an increased vote in Scotland, on the basis of more Members of Parliament for Scotland and on ways of seeking to increase the strength of the Union. That is what I mean by taking stock.

Mr. Dover: Is the Prime Minister aware that millions of people are fed up with having to pay extra community charge to cover those who do not pay? Will he encourage all local authorities to ensure that people pay their bills promptly and will he ensure that future charges are reduced when that money comes into council coffers?

The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that we need to pursue those who do not pay the community charge and, in particular, we should pursue those Members of the House who do not pay the community charge and set a bad example to everyone else.

Mr. Chris Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree with the proposition that it is entirely sensible for a Government to borrow prudently in order to fund capital investment to build economic recovery but that it is sheer folly for a Government to borrow in order to buy votes for an election'? Would that not be fiscal philandering of the worst kind?

The Prime Minister: Without in any way prejudging what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will do in the Budget, I seem to recall that the last Labour Government —on the back of a huge borrowing requirement—cut taxes just in advance of the 1979 election. But if the hon. Gentleman wants to know about investment, let me give him some information about investment. We now have the largest investment programme of capital investment in the national health service that we have ever had. Next year hospital spending in capital terms will be 75 per cent. up on the last year of the Labour Government. Those are the fruits of an improved economy over the last 10 years.

Mr. Tracey: Will my right hon. Friend restate his commitment to the assisted places scheme in our schools, which is an extremely cost-effective way of sending children of high ability to good schools? Is it not short-sighted for both Opposition parties to be pledged to the abolition of this scheme?

The Prime Minister: It is an extremely popular scheme, as my hon. Friend knows. We will sustain that scheme in the next Parliament. The Opposition parties would abolish it, given the chance.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Williams: Having been Chief Secretary to the Treasury before becoming Chancellor, and Chancellor before becoming Prime Minister, is the Prime Minister really trying to tell us that he bears no responsibility whatever for the recession? Why is the Prime Minister continually trying to blame everyone else when it is his own errors of judgment, mistakes and economic incompetence that have produced the current recession?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman builds too much on too little. I made it clear on a number of occasions over recent years that there was, in retrospect, one change that I wish we had not made at the time, but it was one that was urged on us by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. That was the reduction of interest rates immediately on the back of the stock exchange crash, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we were urged to cut them even more by the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). What responsibility will they accept for that?

Mr. Butcher: Can my right hon. Friend give a guarantee that he will never propose the introduction of unnecessary and expensive regional assemblies in England and Wales? Does he agree that when Opposition parties advocate such bodies they do so with the entirely cynical objective of maintaining the over-representation of Scotland in this House in the aftermath of the dog's breakfast called devolution?

The Prime Minister: Such assemblies are neither wanted nor needed, and we will not propose them.

Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Thompson: Is the Prime Minister aware that since 1979 the crime figures in England and Wales have gone up by 102 per cent., that in the north of England they have gone up by 123 per cent. and that in the Northumbria police force area—my area—robberies have gone up by 240 per cent. and criminal damage by 238 per cent? The Home Office is advising the police to increase the number of officers while at the same time the Department of the Environment is capping local authorities' spending. How does the Prime Minister square that circle?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about law and order, perhaps he could explain to me why his party refuses to support the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, which was introduced initially by a Labour Government and is now opposed by a Labour Opposition. He might also have mentioned in his remarks that spending on law and order

is up by 80 per cent. in real terms and that there are 15,500 more police officers, whereas Labour left the police force under establishment by 7,000 when it left office. Labour has opposed our measures which have led to stiffer sentences, it would shackle the police with political controls and its answer to rising crime is to blame everyone except the criminal.

Offending on Bail

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
The number of those who commit an offence while on bail has risen. We estimate that, of the nearly 500,000 people granted court bail last year, about 50,000 were convicted of an offence committed while on bail. Five years ago, the figure was about 35,000. That represents a serious problem, especially for the police.
The offender who commits an offence while on bail is likely to be a male aged between 17 and 20, and charged with property crime, usually car crime and burglary. We must crack down on those bail bandits.
The Government are determined that the courts and the police should have the powers that they need. I am, therefore, announcing a package of six measures today.
We intend to change the law in two ways. First, it is right that a person who commits an offence while on bail should normally receive a more severe penalty. We will introduce legislation to require courts to consider offending on bail as an aggravating factor when passing sentence. Secondly, the police need clear statutory power to arrest people immediately who breach police bail. We will introduce legislation to secure that.
Those measures taken together represent a considerable toughening of the existing law, but we intend to go further to deal with the hard core who persistently reoffend.
Our third measure, therefore, is to ensure that people who are granted bail are left in no doubt of the risks that they run if they break their bail conditions or offend while on bail. We are asking all magistrates courts to ensure that the bail notices issued to all defendants make it crystal clear that if they fail to answer bail, or fail to comply with the conditions imposed, or if they commit an offence while on bail, they risk being remanded in custody. The courts have extensive powers to impose stringent conditions on bail. I am confident that they will make full use of them and that they will tighten up the arrangements for supervision.
Fourthly, we need to ensure that the courts have the fullest information when they decide whether to grant bail so that they can pick out more accurately the bad risks. We therefore intend this year to set up in selected local areas —including the inner cities—bail information projects which will ensure that information from the police, from the Crown prosecution service and from the probation service is collated and available to the courts. That builds on the bail information schemes which we have in 113 courts and 13 prisons, and which in due course will be backed up by a new computerised criminal record system.
Fifthly, magistrates have the difficult task of taking decisions each day of the week in this complex area of risk assessment. The Judicial Studies Board has therefore agreed to review the training of magistrates in the criteria set out in the Bail Act 1976.
Sixthly, experience shows that some defendants will behave on bail if, and only if, they are properly supervised. We will provide £8 million over the next three years for bail accommodation and support.
Well-run bail hostels reduce the risk of offending. There are 29 such hostels with 600 places, and a further 82 approved probation bail hostels providing 1,800 places.

An additional 800 places will be provided by April 1995. This programme will also include innovative schemes aimed at keeping defendants out of crime.
I am grateful for the efforts police forces have made to bring information to bear on this subject. We shall work closely with them to provide regular and reliable information about offending on bail.
I am asking my officials as a matter of urgency to consult fully with the police, the Crown prosecution service, the magistrates courts service, the social services departments and the probation service to implement the steps I have announced this afternoon. Together they will make a direct impact on the problem of offending while on bail.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: In order to put his statement in perspective, will the Home Secretary confirm that the document prepared by his Department a month ago made clear that 82 per cent. of all offenders remanded on bail do not commit a second offence, and that the essential requirement for reforming the system is better ways of selecting those who should receive bail and those who should not? It would be helpful if the Home Secretary endorsed the view of his Department that errors are made in both directions.
There is much in the Home Secretary's statement which we are glad to welcome. It is right that the courts should be helped to distinguish between good and bad risks, and that defendants granted bail should be left in no doubt of the risk they take if they offend a second time or break their bail conditions. It is equally right that the police be provided with a statutory right to arrest offenders who are in breach of their bail conditions.
We also welcome the announcement of additional bail hostel places. Indeed, we have been advocating that for some time. We note with particular pleasure the introduction of what the Home Secretary called
innovative schemes aimed at keeping defendants out of crime".
Such schemes have been advocated in Labour party policy documents and have previously been dismissed by Government spokesmen as an indication that we are soft on crime.
Before I ask the Home Secretary specific questions about the legislation, may we be told why the Government have belatedly changed their mind on the issue? Last August, in Sunderland, the Minister of State said that he doubted very much
that an additional prosecution for having committed an offence while on bail would have any deterrent effect at all.
What has happened to change the Secretary of State's mind?
While the Home Secretary ponders that, I will ask him two specific questions on legislation. First, if a defendant is charged while on bail, has he committed an aggravated offence even if he is found not guilty on the original charge? Secondly, will a defendant who is charged with a second offence have to wait for sentencing on the first offence until the trial for the other offence has been completed? Would it not have been much simpler in every way if the Home Secretary had taken action to ensure that offences committed while on bail simply attracted more severe sentences?
Why have the Government waited so long, and until so late, to introduce these measures? What we see today is another attempt—wholly characteristic of the Home Secretary—to influence headlines rather than to reduce


crime. Had he been serious about the task, he would have announced today the implementation of the Morgan report, his own report prepared for him and presented to him, giving ways in which crime could be reduced. He has chosen not to take action on that report because he does not regard it as sufficiently publicity worthy. That is no way for a Home Secretary to behave.

Mr. Baker: On the last point, the Morgan report is out for consultation, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I have searched carefully for references in the right hon. Gentleman's recent speeches urging me to take action on reoffending on bail, and I cannot find anything at all.
The right hon. Gentleman began by referring to research. I see that, in his remarks this morning, he intimated that some of the research might have been exaggerated. I can only say to him that, only a fortnight ago, I had a meeting with northern Labour Members led by the Labour Chief Whip, who urged me to take on board the research—the 40 per cent. figure that the right hon. Gentleman condemned utterly this morning—and to introduce measures. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to his Chief Whip and that they will sort out exactly what their combined approach is.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me some specific questions. As regards sentencing for the aggravated offence, the law will have to be changed. The courts will have available to them the possibility of imposing a further and higher sentence as a result of the changes that we are making. I repeat that that will require a change in the law. The extra sentence will be added, as it were, when the second offence has been clarified; if the defendant is found not guilty of the second offence, there clearly cannot be an additional sentence.
The right hon. Gentleman's other question was about sentencing.

Mr. Hattersley: Why has the Minister of State changed his mind?

Mr. Baker: We have not changed our minds. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would care to remind himself of what we have said today. What we have done is to bring forward a series of measures to identify those who have the greatest risk of reoffending on bail. It has always been our intention under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to ensure that society is protected from those who reoffend. As I have said, 50,000 defendants reoffend while on bail. That represents a substantial increase in recent years, and the measures announced today address that problem. I do not believe that, if the right hon. Gentleman had responsibility for my office, he would have introduced such measures at all. As I have said, he has a capacity to talk strongly and act weakly.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we will be subject to a timetable motion later this afternoon. I will allow questions to continue until 4.15 pm, then there will be a ten-minute Bill and then we must move on to the main debate. May I ask for questions that are brief and to the point?

Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. Friend is quite right to respond to the genuine concern of the police about reoffending on bail because the true number of people who offend on bail is unknown. My

right hon. Freind's commitment to bail hostels and bail information schemes is particularly important because that will enable the magistrates, who have the most difficult administrative duty to perform in making the decision, to be better informed in deciding who should be held in custody and who on remand.

Mr. Baker: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend who, in his previous responsibilities, had direct experience of the matter. The important impact of the measures that I have announced is that the information available to the courts will be improved considerably, and that includes information from the Crown prosecution service, the police, the probation service and social workers, so that those most likely to reoffend and those who have a record of reoffending can be identified and action can be taken. They can be remanded in custody certainly but they can also be remanded in bail hostels. That is an important alternative because offenders who are likely to reoffend on bail will have some supervision if they are committed to a bail hostel.
The record of bail hostels is very successful. The rate of absconding or reoffending on the part of those committed to bail hostels is very low. I am glad that we are committed to a major programme of expansion—some 800 places over the next three years.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Although the measures announced by the Home Secretary are welcome, does he accept that they are also extremely modest and that their impact upon the 50,000 reoffenders is not likely in a year's time to attract the headline to the effect that the so-called crackdown on bail bandits has produced the result that the Home Secretary will no doubt wish to trumpet? The bail hostels programme that the right hon. Gentleman has described will provide only an additional 800 places, although he seeks to catch some 50,000 offenders. Is he satisfied that the magistrates will accept his views about how they should exercise their discretion? Has he in fact consulted magistrates at all?

Mr. Baker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are 600 bail hostel places, 1,800 probation bail places, and there will be a further 800 bail hostel places—a substantial increase. The measures that I announced this afternoon are not modest: they are a substantial change. It requires a change in the law, introducing the consideration of the court to take in as an aggravating circumstance the fact that someone has reoffended on bail. That is a substantial and significant change, and I have been pressed by the police forces for some time to introduce it.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed by the federated ranks of the police, particularly the power to deal with those who breach police bail and the powers of the courts to award additional sentences? Will the tightening of the custody rules, for example, enable the police to detain a suspect in police cells and then bring that suspect forward at the first available court sitting? That problem has caused great concern within the police for many months. If that procedure could be arranged, it would be very welcome.
Will my right hon. Friend look at the problem of absconding from bail hostels at night? There is some


evidence to suggest that those who are confined in bail hostels are able to go out rather too easily after the hours of darkness and commit further offences.

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend's second point is a matter for the managers of bail hostels and the local probation committees. Certainly the ones that I have visited—and I have visited several in the country—are very well managed. As I have said, they have very little trouble with absconding or reoffending.
As to police bail, after arrest, if they do not give a defendant bail to appear before a court, the police may give him bail to return to a police station at a given date, after which he may be dealt with by charge, by formal caution, or there may be no further action. That is prior, of course, to the court bail. If he fails to return to the police station, it is an offence, but the police have no power to arrest him for it. We propose to bring in legislation so that the police have such a power, and the police have pressed us to do that.

Mr. Peter Archer: Are not the bail information provisions which the right hon. Gentleman has just announced a dismal confession of failure? If the probation service, the Crown prosecution service, the police and the courts were adequately resourced, would there be a problem of providing the courts with information?

Mr. Baker: There has been a substantial increase in the funding of courts and of the Crown prosecution service over the years. Indeed, we have appointed an additional 160 judges and opened more than 180 additional court rooms over the past 12 years. At the same time we have improved bail information schemes. As I have said, we have 113 such schemes, and 13 operating in prisons. I am keen to improve even further the flow of information and the exchange of information between the various agencies involved. That is why we are setting up projects, some in the inner cities, later this year.

Mr. Richard Alexander: Does my right hon. Friend regard the comments of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) as supportive of his proposals, or will the Opposition face both ways again on crime prevention? Will my right hon. Friend cast his mind back to the time when I was practising in the magistrates courts? Magistrates then required sureties and recognisances from other people before a defendant was allowed bail, and if the defendant broke bail they were forfeited. Could my right hon. Friend extend that practice to those who break bail and deal with the problem in that way?

Mr. Baker: I note what my hon. Friend has said. I have said that the Judicial Studies Board will review the training of magistrates and the Bail Act 1976. Such points will be covered by the review.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the Home Secretary accept that it is somewhat unrealistic to talk of remand in custody for people who commit further offences on bail when we have a massive shortage of accommodation and policies such as "Operation Container" and the problems associated with that? Do we not need to do more to ensure

that those who are remanded in custody are brought to trial much more quickly than they are at present, because they are innocent until proved guilty in court?

Mr. Baker: Yes. I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. I am worried about court delays. A working group was set up by the Attorney-General, the Lord Chancellor and myself to find ways of streamlining pre-trail procedures. The working group, which reported just before Christmas, recommended 200 or so changes in procedure. Some are fairly small, but cumulatively they will have a significant effect on court delays. They are being implemented now. I have in mind target time limits. Targets have been established by the Crown prosecution service for the various processes of a case.
Tomorrow the Lord Chancellor and I will publish a report on a White Paper which reviews the future management of magistrates court services. Pre-trial reviews are taking place on an experimental basis in selected magistrates courts. The introduction of remand for 28 days should reduce unnecessary court hearings and encourage effective case management.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, to the law-abiding public, it flies in the face of all reason that someone who commits an offence while on bail does not receive a severe penalty? Given the facts that he has put to us today on the disturbing number of extra people who commit offences, will my right hon. Friend say roughly what percentage of those people did not incur another penalty?

Mr. Baker: It is difficult to give my hon. Friend the exact figure that he requires. But I agree entirely about people who are given bail and commit an offence. There is plenty of evidence from the police forces to show that that happens. We have had evidence from Northumbria police force and Avon and Somerset police force. The police become frustrated when they arrest someone, bring him to court—I say "he" because it is usually a young male—and find that he is released on bail.
The proposal that I have announced today will, first, improve the flow of information so that a bad risk can be more precisely identified. Secondly, there will be changes in the law so that people who offend on bail know that they could be subject to a longer sentence than would otherwise be the case. I believe that in many cases that will act as a deterrent to offending on bail. I am glad to say that the package that I have announced today has been widely discussed with the police and has their strongest support.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Home Secretary agree that if someone who is arrested, charged with an offence and granted bail commits an offence while on bail, the magistrates have the power to remand that person in custody? Perhaps they ought to be reminded that they have that power. But the other point, which is more important, is that when an offender comes to be sentenced by the court it will sentence for count 1, the first offence, and then for count 2, which happens to be consecutive and is therefore added on. The thrust behind all this is gently to remind the judiciary that it has the power to make consecutive sentences. We do not need any more legislation because the judges are capable of taking care of the situation anyway.

Mr. Baker: I noticed that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was nodding when the hon. Gentleman said that we did not need the measure. I assure him that we do. Again I have been pressed by the chief constables to bring in a change in the law about the aggravating offence. I believe that it will have an effect on the attitude of young men who are likely to reoffend on hail. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the present arrangements are satisfactory. He is in a small minority if he does.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: May I reassure my right hon. Friend that my constituents in Elworth in Sandbach will be reassured by the proposals that he has announced today? Can he tell us within what time scale they will be implemented? Will he say a little more about bail hostels? One is to be opened in Sandbach later this year. A vital matter to local residents is that the selection of those who are to stay in the hostel should ensure that they are the least likely to reoffend. Another is that the hostels should be run rigorously. That will reassure local people about the safety of themselves, their properties and their cars.

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I receive a fair amount of correspondence from both Conservative and Opposition Members about the location of bail hostels. They must be run properly and, indeed, effectively and strongly. That is what my hon. Friend was saying, and I accept it. She asked about the timing of the measures. The four measures that do not require legislation are already in hand. The two measures that require legislation will be introduced immediately after the election and we shall give them high priority. As I understand it, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, by nodding in approval of what his hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said a moment ago, showed that he does not support one of the measures. So presumably the Labour party will not put that measure in its manifesto.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Is the Home Secretary aware that what we needed today was not a statement but a confession as to why, after all the Government's massive spending on the police, courts and prisons, crime has doubled during the lifetime of the Government? People outside this place are not conned into thinking that the talk of toughening laws and filling up the prisons two weeks before an election will deal with the conditions that breed crime. What we need is a majority Labour Government with, at the very least, a programme of full employment.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman is trying to find every reason and excuse for crime other than the individual responsibility of the criminal. I do not agree. He says that we are producing tough measures at the end of this Parliament. We have introduced tougher penalties during our years in office and the Labour party has voted against them. When we introduced the Criminal Justice Bill in 1991 the Labour party voted against the proposals. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, we did not."] Yes, the Labour party voted against proposals to take into account the record of convicted prisoners. It is on the record. It also put forward proposals to reduce the length of time served by serious criminals in prison. We shall put all that before the country during the next few weeks.

Mr. Robert Hayward: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to compliment Avon and Somerset police, who were one of the first to identify the problem and the scale of the problem in Bristol and surrounding areas? Does he have any idea of where resources are likely to be allocated? If not, could some of those resources be directed towards Bristol, in Avon and Somerset?

Mr. Baker: I have heard what my hon. Friend has said about further resources in Bristol and I shall bear his request in mind when it comes to the bail information schemes. I pay tribute to the Avon and Somerset police. I met with them at the end of last week. They have done a great deal of work on reoffending while on bail, and the research which they produced has helped us considerably in formulating the package.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Home Secretary accept that his proposals mean that more people will be sent to prison and that many of Britain's prisons are a disgrace? Will he accept from someone who visited Brixton a few weeks ago that the number of mentally ill people in prison is unacceptable? Does he accept the view that Dr. Andrew Coyle—a distinguished governor, who is served by excellent staff in Brixton—said on the BBC documentary about what is going on there that those people should not be there? In a civilised society, what proposals does the Home Secretary have to deal with those important matters?

Mr. Baker: I agree that Dr. Coyle is a distinguished prison governor. The programme of refurbishment at Brixton is one of our largest refurbishment programmes and will extend to the hospital wing.
We do not expect a significant increase in the prison population as a result of the proposals. There will be a more accurate identification of those people who present a risk of reoffending while on bail. As a result of the better information services which will he available to the courts it may be possible to release some of the people remanded in custody, where the risk is much less, possibly to a bail hostel, or to tighter supervision within the community.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend elaborate on the answer that he gave to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and explain how the Government have improved the flow of court cases, is planning to improve it further and therefore will diminish the number of people who fall into that category?

Mr. Baker: I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer given by the Attorney-General before Christmas. A working party, involving officials from the Home Department, the Crown prosecution service and the Lord Chancellor's Department, has been established to find ways to speed court processes. As I have said, most of the changes are modest but cumulatively they make a great difference. For example, the Crown prosecution service can now state time limits on the progress of a case through the courts. That great improvement is now being implemented.
I attach great importance to this package of measures. They are not dramatic or headline stuff, but they represent good court administration. If we can speed up the court process and cut court delays, justice and efficiency will be served.

Mr. John Fraser: Does the Home Secretary accept that there has been an almighty row between the Lord Chancellor's Department and legal aid lawyers about the cost of representing people in cases of this sort? Will the Lord Chancellor take note of the extra work involved if there is a more thorough examination of people's antecedents before bail is granted? Will the Home Secretary tell us what will happen to a person who has been sentenced and convicted for a first offence after a second offence, which aggravates the first, is committed? How will the courts deal with that?

Mr. Baker: The person will be sentenced only after the second offence. That question would be more properly directed to my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor because it refers to legal aid and green form aid. I hope that the solicitors representing defendants in such cases—it is important to recognise that they are defendants because they are not guilty until convicted—will benefit enormously from the improved flow of information. The solicitors may not incur extra costs, and they may welcome some of the cost savings that result.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: With regard to juvenile offenders, the courts often find that they are not given reports by social services and, therefore, they cannot provide secure accommodation. In such cases, cannot the courts decide, at their own discretion, whether the juvenile offender should be remanded?

Mr. Baker: Money has been secured for building more accommodation for juveniles. I attach priority to that. That responsibility is shared with the Department of Health. I want those proposals, which are shortly to be announced, to go ahead as quickly as possible.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is it not simpler and more constructive for the Government to create an economic climate in which jobs are available for the majority of the young men we have been discussing this afternoon?

Mr. Baker: When it comes to the causes of crime, it serves no purpose to blame anyone but the criminal. Criminals have individual responsibility. That point is important. We have taken initiatives which deal with the problem of young offenders in order to divert them from a life of crime. It is important that we do that and there are positive ideas in the proposals that I have announced this afternoon to achieve that.

Mr. John Watts: My right hon. Friend's package of measures will be warmly welcomed by the victims of crime and the police who find it difficult to recapture them as fast as the courts release them on bail. I urge my right hon. Friend to go further and remove the courts' discretion to allow further bail to those who commit offences when they are already on bail. Will he make it mandatory for such people to be remanded in custody or in bail hostels?

Mr. Baker: I do not wish to limit the discretion of the courts in that way. Judges and magistrates will be provided with additional powers to consider aggravated consequences. I do not wish to oblige them mandatorily to assign reoffenders on bail to custody automatically. Perhaps the best arrangement would be to send such offenders to bail hostels, or to put them under tighter supervision through

curfew orders, or to require them to attend police stations. However, it depends on the offender, and the court should continue to have that discretion.

Mr. Robert Litherland: The Government must accept some responsibility for creating the conditions in which crime can flourish. The right hon. Gentleman gloats about the increased amount of bail hostel accommodation. He must appreciate that the need for such accommodation was mentioned in the Woolf report. How can he claim that his policy has been successful when the number of people in detention continues to increase?

Mr. Baker: I am well aware of the problems of prisoners in police cells. That is one reason why I have decided to keep active in the prison estate six prisons that were scheduled to be closed, and why we have pressed ahead with our prison building programme. In the next 12 months, six new prisons will be opened, providing 4,500 new prison places. It represents the largest prison building programme this century.

Sir Donald Thompson: One part of my right hon. Friend's welcome statement will not need legislation, and that is the section dealing with magistrates courts. While not wishing to anticipate tomorrow's report, may I ask my right hon. Friend to persuade magistrates courts committees not to close smaller courts, as is being attempted in my constituency?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend raises what is, for the most part, a contentious local matter. Reviews of the administration of magistrates courts are taking place all the time. My hon. Friend will recall that, as from 1 April, the Lord Chancellor will take responsibility for magistrates courts. I regard it as a sensible transfer that the Lord Chancellor's Department should be responsible for Crown and magistrates courts, and I know that he will address the problem of which my hon. Friend has spoken. Indeed, I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to his attention.

Mr. Martin Redmond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nothing in his statement will allay the fears of my constituents? Is he further aware that it is no good tinkering at the edges and that we must look at the underlying causes of the escalation of crime? Considering the various policies that the Government have introduced but which have failed, may I ask him to consider establishing a royal commission to examine the underlying causes and to make recommendations?

Mr. Baker: No, I do not believe that we need a royal commission. I have set up a royal commission to look into the criminal justice system because I am sure that it needs that type of attention, but I do not believe that a royal commission would contribute to this issue. We need positive action to deal with the problem of reoffending, and I have this afternoon produced a positive package which many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, on reflection, will welcome.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Given that the incidence of offending while on bail is higher in places where delays and court adjournments are at their highest, would it not be more sensible to examine the distribution of stipendiary magistrates throughout the country? Is my


right hon. Friend aware that areas with the longest delays —such as Bristol, Teesside and Northumberland—do not have stipendiary magistrates?

Mr. Baker: I shall draw that proposal to the attention of the Lord Chancellor. The number of stipendiary magistrates has increased slightly since we came to power. An advantage of such a large prison building programme is that it has been possible in some cases to build courts alongside prisons. That has eased considerably the passage and process of justice. It has happened at Belmarsh, in London, for example. There is a tremendous movement every day from prisons to courts in respect of remand. That is why we have introduced the possibility of a 28-day remand. I believe that the Opposition oppose that, though it would be a sensible change. It would reduce the number of court appearances and would help to reduce court delays.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Home Secretary pay tribute to the Gwent police force, which has been highly efficient and has one of the highest clear-up rates in Britain? Will he show his appreciation by for once allowing that police force to have the number of constables it needs? Year after year the right hon. Gentleman denies the police authority and the chief constable the number of policemen the force requires. Is it not a fact that the Home Secretary stands at the Dispatch Box judged guilty as charged of 13 years of incompetence, of rising crime and of anarchy on the streets, and that his sentence should include political exile for a long time?

Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman intends to try to persuade the electorate that the Labour party has effective policies on law and order, he will be pushing a stone uphill. In the latest Gallup poll, the Conservatives had a 22 point lead over Labour on the issue of law and order. That is not surprising because when Labour Members were in office they cut the amount of money available to the police, to the courts, and to the prisons.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, may I remind him that half of all crimes in south Wales are car related and that approximately half those crimes are committed by a small number of young offenders, usually awaiting sentence for a first offence? Most appropriately, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has made proposals for secure accommodation, which would be the best way to contain those offenders and stop them reoffending. Amazingly, however, Labour-controlled South Glamorgan council is trying to thwart that proposal. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will brook no such opposition, thereby demonstrating that the Government are on the side of the victim, not of the criminal?

Mr. Baker: What my hon. Friend says about South Glamorgan council is true and it does not surprise me. Too much attention is paid to the criminal and not enough is paid to the victim, which is why we now have the most generous system of criminal compensation in the western world, why we published the victims' charter some 18 months ago—and it is being implemented—and why we have a network of 7,500 volunteers to help victims. None of that would have happened had the Labour party been in office for the past few years.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Home Secretary agree that the guilty should be punished? Is he aware that in Greater Manchester now, two years after the Strangeways incident, more than 600 prisoners are being held in police cells, either convicted or on remand? On many weekends, because those people are being held in police cells, the police find it difficult to place prisoners anywhere within Greater Manchester, so the pressure on the police to give police bail is extremely high. As the Home Secretary is directly responsible for that appalling situation and is hamstringing the police in Greater Manchester, is not it time that he resigned?

Mr. Baker: I have given considerable support to the police in Manchester. Indeed, the increase in standard spending assessments for police forces across the country this coming year is between 15 per cent. and 17 per cent., which shows our commitment to police forces. It allows all police forces to recruit up to establishment, which they could not do when the Labour Government were in office because they left the police forces 8,000 under establishment.
I am aware of the problems in the Manchester area. The consequences of Strangeways still exist, but a substantial investment programme is going ahead in prisons in the north-west, and I hope that that problem will be contained in the coming months.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Each of the six measures that my right hon. Friend proposed is to be welcomed. Hopefully, this time the Labour party will support them. May I suggest a seventh measure? My right hon. Friend will remember that during the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill in 1988 I proposed a new clause that provided that, for a serious indictable offence, a court would have to explain why it had given bail against police advice. Although the Home Office decided to accept the principle, it would not go as far as I wanted and implemented the measure only for murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape and attempted rape. Is not it about time that, for all serious indictable offences, the courts gave their reasons publicly for granting bail against police advice?

Mr. Baker: If a court decides to give bail against police advice, it owes it to the police to explain the reasons. It is statutorily required to do so, as my hon. Friend accurately described, in serious cases—in cases of murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, rape or attempted rape. We are continuing our discussions with the police and the other agencies, including the magistracy, in the coming months, and I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion. If a magistrate decides to give bail after considerable pressure from the police, it is fair to suggest that the reasons should be stated. With the growing co-operation between the agencies—the Crown prosecution service, the magistracy and the polic—that is the sort of spirit that we are trying to generate.

Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the Home Secretary understand my surprise and disappointment that in his presentation he did not give credit to Northumbria police and the research carried out in Newcastle university which has played such an important part in highlighting the problem? Does that mean that he also intends to leave Newcastle and Northumbria out of his proposals on bail information and


extra bail hostels? Does he recognise that, throughout the recent difficult period, Newcastle police have been attending to many overflow prisoners in police cells, so they are less able to deal with good order on the streets as they are coping with bad order in prisons? Will he ensure that juvenile secure accommodation is made available to the Newcastle and Northumbria police and that they do not have to travel 20 to 25 miles to find it?

Mr. Baker: On the issue of juvenile secure accommodation, I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson).
I pay tribute to the work done by Northumbria police. They prepared their figures on a different statistical basis from that used by other forces and the Home Office, but they identified many incidents of reoffending on bail, particularly in north Tyneside. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to be reminded of the fact that, this year, the Northumbrian police have benefited from the urban crime fund—an extra £3·6 million was made available to the Northumbrian police. There was also a substantial increase in standard spending assessment of 16 per cent. for that police force, and a substantial payment was made as a result of the riot damage last September.

Mr. John Greenway: Will my hon. Friend continue to give the measures urgent attention, particularly in relation to juvenile offenders? It is simply unacceptable for 16-year-olds to appear in court and plead guilty to as many as 20 offences, most of which were committed on bail after the offender had been arrested. One such offence involved killing a woman in Filey in an accident that involved a stolen vehicle. The young person had been released by Scarborough magistrates court only four days previously as there was no secure accommodation to which to send him. The public expect the Government to do something. The utterly disgraceful response of the Labour party shows that it is incapable of doing anything about the problem.

Mr. Baker: Of course, we are committed to increasing secure accommodation. The cumulative effect of the measures that I have announced this afternoon will help considerably in identifying the young men who pose a bad risk and are liable to reoffend on bail. Positive action must be taken to ensure that reoffending is curbed.

Dr. John Reid: Why has crime doubled under this Government?

Mr. Baker: I have answered various questions during the past few days on that subject. Since the war, the level of crime in Britain has increased regularly by about 5 per cent. a year. The increased spate of crime in the past 18 months is largely due to the rapid increase in car crime, which represents 30 per cent. of all crime. Many of the reoffenders of whom we are talking today are engaged in car crime. I hope that the measures that I have introduced today will have some impact on the level of car crime.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: In connection with this welcome statement and the serious level of shocking crime committed by offenders on bail in Norwich, will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the work of the crime prevention panel in Norwich? Together with the police, that organisation has been calling for such

measures for some considerable time. Will my right hon. Friend address the issue of secure accommodation for young offenders in Norfolk and Suffolk, which also poses a serious problem?

Mr. Baker: I re-emphasise what I have said about secure accommodation. I met the crime prevention panel in Norwich when I visited the constabulary there, and know that it does valuable work. It does particularly important work in relation to protecting vulnerable women as they go around the city centre—an effective example of a crime prevention panel co-operating with the police.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is the Home Secretary aware that the men and women of this country desperately want the ability to live in peace and security in their own homes without fear of burglary, having their car stolen or smashed open and having the radio taken? Would those same men and women share with me, and police men and women up and down the country, a sense of cynicism that, today, the Home Secretary, like a latter-day Rip Van Winkle, has suddenly been woken up by the news that the Conservatives are likely to lose the next election, and so is now about to introduce a measure to do something about the crime wave in our country?
Opposition Members have always supported positive measures to combat crime, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has said, we support most of the measures announced by the Home Secretary. We ask the Government, however, why they do not go further. Why did they not grasp the nettle and tackle the causes of crime years ago? There have been 13 wasted years. Why did the Government not act?

Mr. Baker: I am delighted to accept converts. Over the past year, the hon. Gentleman has not supported measures —tough measures—that we have introduced. He voted against the joyriding Bill—

Mr. Sheerman: I did not.

Mr. Baker: Oh yes, he did. He voted against the Committee stage—

Mr. Sheerman: That is a lie.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sheerman: The Home Secretary is a liar.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but we cannot have that. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw it.

Mr. Sheerman: What does an hon. Member do, Mr. Speaker, when he has been slandered in the House? I did not not vote against that Bill, as the Home Secretary has alleged quite falsely. No Opposition Member voted against it. The Home Secretary has lied to the House. What am I supposed to do?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is compounding the problem. He must not ascribe—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]

Mr. Sheerman: I will withdraw what I said, but, as someone who has been slandered by the Home Secretary, I ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has made his position clear. Now let us hear the Home Secretary.

Mr. Baker: I wanted to say—[Interruption.] May I just say exactly what happened with the joyriding Bill? In crucial votes during the Committee stage, Opposition Members voted against the principle of the Bill—

Mr. Sheerman: Weasel!

Mr. Baker: They were weasel words. In Committee, the Opposition voted against the principle of a Bill that extended culpability to all the passengers in a car. They voted against that, and they voted against the burden of proof. That is what they voted against. They have also voted against other measures. If the House wants an example of how soft they are on crime, let me point out that they voted against renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act last night.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am genuinely sorry that I have not been able to call all the hon. Members who wished to speak, but I shall certainly bear them in mind if and when we return to this subject.

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received a request from any Minister to make a statement about the arrest of two British nationals in Switzerland for alleged Iranian-related crime? Apparently, it is the subject of a D-notice.

Mr. Speaker: I have not heard of that, and I have received no request for a statement.

Mr. John P. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the Secretary of State for Wales said that he will come to the House to make a statement about the virtual collapse of the public transport system in my constituency? One of the major companies has gone into receivership. As a result, ordinary people in my constituency cannot go about their business, because they cannot catch a bus.

Mr. Speaker: I have had no request for a statement. I think that it would be appropriate for the matter to be raised in an Adjournment debate.

BILL PRESENTED

YOUNG PERSONS' RIGHTS

Mr. Terry Fields, supported by Mr. Dave Nellist, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mr. Robert Parry, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Jimmy Wray and Mr. Ronnie Campbell, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the conditions regulating Government training schemes; to make further provision from the National Insurance Fund wth respect to social security benefits for young persons; to make further provision with respect to income support and housing benefit; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February, and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the Questions on the three motions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

That the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

That the Birmingham Heartlands Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

SOCIAL SECURITY

That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 4) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Question agreed to.

Offences Against the Person (Amendment)

Mr. Ian Taylor: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Offences against the Person Act 1861 to provide for increased penalties for assaults upon members of the emergency services on duty; and for connected purposes.
The police are responsible for protecting us from disruptive and unlawful elements in our society. The Metropolitan police and the Surrey constabulary, which cover my constituency, do a wonderful job; so do the ambulance men and firemen who serve my county.
Every day throughout the country the emergency services display devotion to duty under pressure. The police are coping with five times as many crimes as there were 30 years ago, yet we have to ask whether the members of the emergency services are getting the protection that we, as citizens, expect.
We have all heard of and been appalled by the stories during last autumn's riots of attacks on members of the emergency services who were trying to protect citizens. We know from Police Federation reports and others of policemen and policewomen who have been assaulted while investigating an incident or trying to keep the peace. Let us not ponder on the sick mentality of those who carry out such attacks. Let us start by ensuring that the punishment fits the crime. These attacks are nasty, brutish and despicable, regardless of the extent of the injuries caused.
My Bill does not focus on the tragic murders or the sickening cases of grievous bodily harm which have recently been reported. Here the full force of the law is unleashed. What is often not noticed is that members of the emergency services are increasingly faced with routine violence which can inflict injuries on them while they are carrying out their duties. The courts do not seem to be imposing stiff sentences on offenders. In recognition of that fact, my Bill is specifically concerned with assault and threatening behaviour which impedes an officer from carrying out his or her duty to protect the public.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) has raised these matters many times in the House. I pay tribute to him. Alan Eastwood, the chairman of the Police Federation, disclosed last year that close to 20,000 police officers were attacked, a figure which he claimed represents one in four of the force's operational strength. In Surrey, between January and December 1991, 238 officers were assaulted. In London, 3,725 attacks were recorded against police officers in the 12 months to October 1991.
The Government have reacted to the concern expressed by colleagues. I look forward to the publication of the Home Office's survey of statistical evidence of attacks and consequent sentencing. I hope that it will soon be available. It appears that not only is the number of incidents rising but the attacks are becoming more vicious. In Surrey alone, in the six months to October of last year, 18 officers were placed sick as a result of the assaults made on them, causing in total 211 days lost through attack-related sickness. The police also tell me that attacks on women police officers are increasingly sadistic.
The police rightly expect that the perpetrators of assaults should be severely punished. Unfortunately, that is not happening. In Surrey, between November 1990 and

October 1991, 140 incidents, involving 142 offenders, were concluded. Out of that number, only 11 offenders received a custodial sentence. More specifically, the deputy chief constable of Surrey tells me that on one morning last December, magistrates in Chertsey imposed the following penalties: holding a car boot sale in contravention of a planning notice, a fine of £1,400; no car insurance, a fine of £200; fishing in the Thames without a licence, a fine of £60; assault on a police officer, occasioning actual bodily harm, a fine of £50. Last year a Surrey police officer went before the Crown court to give evidence about the attack upon him by two men. The policeman had sustained a quite serious back injury and broken bones in his arm, and he was still having physiotherapy treatment nine months later. The thugs who administered that beating received only community service orders of between 180 and 200 hours respectively.
A sentencing policy of that nature is, frankly, laughable and displays no sense of proportion. What is even more demoralising from the point of view of the police is when a section 47 offence under the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which might carry up to two or three years' imprisonment, is reduced to common assault, with a maximum of six months, or is dropped altogether, or only a warning is given. It is no wonder that the police are furious. That can only encourage the have-a-go mentality of idiots who will take a swing at the police because they know that they will get away with it.
The police are at the sharp end of tackling crime. As citizens, we can assist with communitywide involvement in neighbourhood watches or can become special constables, but, essentially, individual officers have to take the impact of increasing violence with little physical protection. They expect our support. They should take a dim view of how they would be protected by the Labour party's threats to extend political control over police and crime prevention, knowing how some socialists always have a soft spot for criminals and how the Labour party has voted against or tried to weaken every major piece of legislation that the Government have introduced to increase sentences.
I am not surprised that many police officers are buying their own body armour or considering American-style batons. Such batons could be a useful adjunct and should be part of the equipment of every police force in the country. However, they may be better for restraining than for straightforward defence.
We have to increase the penalties available in law and to encourage magistrates to impose them. I hope that magistrates pay attention to the criticism that is targeted on their sentencing policy by many hon. Members.
The criminal must be seen to pay for the assault. The police are not fair game, ready for a punch-up by any gang that feels that they can get away with it. An assault on a police officer should lead to immediate custody, even if the injury is relatively minor. The penalty should range up to a gaol sentence of two years, with or without hard labour —the phrase that appears in the original 1861 Act.
Other members of the emergency services are also vulnerable, as recent events have shown. Only yesterday, youths were reported to have thrown stones at firefighters who were trying to extinguish a blaze on a housing estate. Sadly, that was not an isolated incident. Stone throwers have made emergency calls to lure firemen into ambushes. Do those louts consider what would happen if the emergency services were stopped from attending a genuine


fire or the consequences for anyone trapped in the fire? Those are not minor incidents; it is a very worrying state of affairs.
In protecting our emergency services, particularly the police, we are protecting not only the individuals who wear uniforms but society. Police officers, firemen and ambulance men and women come to the aid of individuals. If they are deflected from their duty by mindless violence, we, as citizens, suffer.
Assaults on any citizen are serious. Assaults on the emergency services when they are trying to protect citizens are unforgivable and brutish. They must be stopped by the full imposition of the powers of law and I hope that my Bill will go some way towards toughening those provisions and that magistrates will then apply them.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ian Taylor. Mrs. Maureen Hicks, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Mr. John Bowis, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Dudley Fishburn, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. Robert Hayward, Mr. Michael Irvine, Mr. Tim Janman, Mr. Roger King and Mr. Graham Riddick.

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Ian Taylor accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 to provide for increased penalties for assaults upon members of the emergency services on duty, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 March and to be printed. [Bill 88.].

Orders of the Day — Local Government Bill [Lords]

ALLOTTED DAY

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for raising this issue, but as a member of the Committee which discussed the Bill I seek your guidance. I notice from the amendments and new clauses to be discussed under the guillotine motion that the first part of the Bill will be given no consideration until we debate new clause 20. What was the procedure which ensured that there will be no debate on the first part of the Bill? It is vitally important that we have a debate on issues that were not properly dealt with in Committee. To judge from the selection of amendments, it seems highly unlikely that there will be any consideration of the major first part of the Bill. It is highly unacceptable to Back Benchers that an important part of the Bill is not to be debated on Report.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows that new clauses and amendments are dealt with in the order in which they appear on the selection list. It is true that we shall not deal with the first part of the Bill until we debate new clause 20. If the hon. Member is suggesting that I was unable to select new clause 5, I am afraid that that is right because it was outside the scope of the Bill.

New clause 3

DUTIES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION

' —(1) The Local Government Commission established under section 12(1) below shall have regard to the need—

(a) to reflect the identities and interests of local communities;
(b) to secure effective and convenient unitary local government;
(c) to establish a structure which is comprehensible to electors;
(d) to promote accountable local government;
(e) to secure the most effective, efficient and economic use of local authorities' financial resources;
(f) to ensure the cost-effective exercise of local authority functions and delivery of local authority services; and
(g) to provide for the consideration of appropriate strategic issues at a regional level.'. —[Mr. Blunkett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Blunkett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may consider the following:
New clause 13—Environmental protection—
'. The Local Government Commission shall, in making recommendations under this Part, have particular regard to the need to secure effective planning for environmental purposes.'.
New clause 14—Local Government Commission:
Objectives
'The Local Government Commission shall be required to frame all its recommendations to the Secretary of State so as to take account of the following objectives:



(a) to identify areas within which people expect to obtain most of their everyday services;
(b) to establish local government boundaries that facilitate the meeting of people's needs and the respecting of existing social organisation;
(c) to enhance the representative role of local government and secure its long-term future; and
(d) to ensure that all issues relating to the effective and efficient delivery of services can be addressed independently of defining local government territories.'.

New clause 17—Arrangements for direct service delivery for new unitary authorities—
'.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order give power to the Audit Commission to—

(a) consider the implications for functions of all changes proposed by the Local Government Commission under section 13(5) and section 14(5) and;
(b) make proposals to the Secretary of State on a function by function basis for separate or combined (either jointly or by one or more councils on behalf of other councils) service delivery arrangements for those functions included in subsection (1)(a) above and for the territories in which such services are to be provided.

(2) An order under subsection (1) above may give directions as to the exercise by the Audit Commission of any powers under this section and such directions may require that Commission to have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State as respects matters to be taken into account.'.

Mr. Blunkett: It is unfortunate that we are debating the Bill in this way. Effectively, we are debating only part II on a guillotine motion on Report and Third Reading, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) said. We debated part II on the final day of the Committee proceedings on a guillotine motion, taking from 10.30 pm until midnight to deal with the issue of reorganisation. In one sense, we have reversed that process this afternoon because, despite the fact that the Committee's report to the House states that only one set of changes was made, in Government amendments to clause 8, it seems that we shall not be debating and scrutinising on Report that matter which was amended by the Government in Committee.
It must therefore be put on record that the way in which the guillotine has been ordered and has fallen is less than helpful in terms of the proper scrutiny and debate of a major piece of legislation. Clearly, there is no point in pursuing the issue of selection at this stage, but it is important to put it on record that we are deeply opposed to the amendments made to clause 8 in Committee and that we shall continue to oppose those impositions.
I regret that we are not dealing with this major issue —the reorganisation of local government in England—with unanimity and consensus. For agreement, certainty and stability to have been reached would have been a logical conclusion to the shambles consequent on previous reorganisations. For the lessons of 1972 not to be learnt in 1992 shows a deliberate and presumably intentional refusal to learn the lessons of history. If the Government have the opportunity of implementing their proposals, the nation will live to regret it.
We could have reached a consensus about the nature of the reorganisation, and we could have had a degree of unanimity about its objectives, but we have not done so because the Government have chosen to continue on an

ideological path that they commenced some 13 years ago. Local government was seen as an obstacle to the economic and social reconstruction of Britain and was believed to be a block on the reorientation of our democratic structures so that the operation of the market place rather than the ballot box would be supreme. The Government substituted their market square for our family circle. Everything was subjected to the law of Mammon. The intention was to determine whether something was profitable and whether it could be put out to tender. The key values of centralisation and privatisation were placed above those of accountability and democratisation.
Under new clause 3, we raise today the whole question of what local government is supposed to be about. What is the reorganisation intended to achieve? Is it driven by a desire to ensure that local people have a say over their lives in a pluralistic democracy in which they can choose for themselves the nature of the provision, the extent of the services delivered, and the quality that they wish to see, and in which they have the ability to raise and spend money to achieve those objectives? Alternatively, is the Bill about reorganising local government in the image of its makers in Westminster and Whitehall—namely, the majority party in the House? It is clear to us that the answer to the latter question is yes. The reorganisation is about the Government's ideological determination to ensure that local authorities are no more than a mouthpiece for a handful of people who manage to find civic office. It is not concerned with local government as a means of community expression and a part of government rather than merely local administration.
It is important to raise a number of key questions today about the nature of local government and what we seek to obtain in reorganising its structure and functions. It is clear to us that local government should be just that—it should be local and it should be government. The Bill and the propositions for the operation of the local government commission will achieve the exact opposite. They take away the ability of local people to act loyally, and they order government only in the sense that it is centralised in the hands of Ministers and civil servants in Westminster and Whitehall. Such government is not local because local people will not be able to determine the way in which local government operates its services. The whole design and structure of the propositions are predicated on the belief that local services will be put out to tender, and will be privatised or centralised.
The appendix to the guidance for the commission shows clearly how major services, which we expect to be dealt with by local government, are to be taken substantially away from the determination of locally elected representatives. The guidance is explicit, so it is worth repeating—as we did briefly in Committee—the way in which it is phrased.
Housing is currently a key function for district authorities outside the metropolitan areas. The Government's decision is clear because the guidance talks about the way in which the housing function should continue. It says:
Authorities also own and manage some four million units of housing but Government policy is that they should adopt an enabling role, assessing needs in their area but relying on housing associations and the private sector for new provision.
In other words, the function of a local authority in providing directly for the needs of its electorate will be


removed. The ability of a local authority to respond directly to the aspirations and the desperate needs of people will be diminished. Instead, the role of local authorities will be merely to monitor and to appeal to other people to provide for the desperate needs not only of the homeless but of the many people who seek rehousing at different times in their lives. They may need more suitable accommodation, such as sheltered provision in old age. They may need more appropriate dwellings as their families grow up or as their families are extended.
It is clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will confirm, that the intention behind the Government's housing policy is to ensure that people no longer turn to their elected representatives to have their needs met. They will be expected to turn to the private sector and to housing associations alone. None of us says that a pluralistic approach cannot be applied to those issues.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in some instances the sheer size of local authority housing departments militates against good management? Does he acknowledge that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), a previous Front Bench spokesman on housing, said that Birmingham was trying to manage more than 100,000 properties which simply was not practical? Is it not right that we should now talk about local authorities being concerned more with enabling than with simply trying to manage bigger and bigger departments?

Mr. Blunkett: The Bill deals with authorities outside the metropolitan areas. No one could describe the housing authorities in the non-metropolitan districts as gigantic. It is interesting to reflect that a recent report has shown that there is now grave concern about the size of housing associations, and about the way in which their operations can be more centralised and more at arm's length than those of local authorities. Local authorities have sought to decentralise their management and their facilities. Birmingham tried to parish the city, but was blocked in that endeavour. It attempted to ensure that there was devolved and decentralised management, which many good local authorities have sought to achieve.
Many of us feel that direct involvement by tenants in the running and operation of housing and housing estates is a valuable contribution in ensuring that they have genuine democratic control over what is rightly theirs. Placing tenants outside the local authority sector disables that process and makes it far more difficult. Recent studies have shown that there is far less tenant control in other sectors of housing than there is in the good authorities which have carried out Labour party policy in devolving and decentralising not only housing offices, but the management and control of their housing stock.
There are fundamental issues about the way in which facilities are taken away from the people for whom they are supposed to be intended. The same applies to education, in which the Government have also made their intentions clear. Much of the Bill is a hidden agenda. It is difficult for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to hide anything under a bushel, so the intentions for education have been made clear. We need to make them even clearer today. The guidance to the commission says:

The number of schools operating as grant-maintained … is likely to rise significantly".
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] "Hear, hear", comes heavily from Conservative Members.

Mr. Alun Michael: Only two of them.

Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend points out that it comes heavily from two Conservative Members.
The guidance continues:
grant-maintained status should become over time the natural organisational model for schools … It is also intended that the local authorities should lose their present responsibility for further education colleges and sixth-form colleges and for schools inspection.
The Further and Higher Education Bill is in Committee today, under a guillotine, for the dismemberment of the further and adult education service.
Authorities rightly look eagerly to the notion of unitary status and being able to bring together under one umbrella the provision of a number of key services so that they can integrate their social and economic policies for the locality as a whole. Unitary authorities would mean that people would have just one door to knock on. The authorities grasp in the air for the castles promised them, but find that they disintegrate into sand between their fingers because the functions that they would inherit bear no resemblance to local government as we have known it throughout the last century.
Instead of authorities having the power to act directly to house their people or to ensure education for children from nursery schooling to post-16 comprehensive education, just as the authorities feel that they have the opportunity to deal in a co-ordinated and integrated fashion with the needs of their people, suddenly they find that those functions are being taken from them. The illusion of new power and new responsibility is therefore turning into disillusionment. The people find that central Government are centralising and neutralising the powers that local authorities believed that they would have. The Government will determine funding arrangements from the centre and will relate directly to local schools or colleges through funding agencies rather than through the local education authority; Ministers will be responsible but not accountable for what happens locally.
Even in social services, we see the Government's intentions spelt out in the draft guidance to the commission. It says:
The Government's policy is that social services authorities should concentrate more on commissioning the procurement and assessment of services and less on direct provision themselves.
It recognises that child care has to be an exception, given the Children Act 1989, and the fact that the Minister of State at the Department of Health, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), has constantly referred to her commitment and to the need for local authorities to be able to act.
The logic of everything said, whether on housing, education, social services or the generality of provision, is that a local authority should no longer provide directly for its citizens but should become the enabling authority that the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) used to describe, which would meet only once a year to let private sector contracts. The No Turning Back


group, of which the Minister of State remains an active supporter, spelt it out in its pamphlet, "Responsibility and Choice". It said:
Only public health, civil defence and local amenities need remain an integral part of local government.
What a choice—what a level of responsibility that is for local authorities to take on.
The Association of District Councils, eagerly awaiting the message that the commission is to set out on its travels to award councils new status, new power and new functions, finds in the end that they are to have none of them. Councils will end up with local government which is no more than a telephone box with a civic car outside. A mayor may be able to visit bazaars and give out largesse in the form of annual Christmas parcels or attend spring balls, without being able to meet the needs of the people in his community.
The legislation would make a farce of local democracy and a mockery of any attempt to devolve power to local government. Clearly, the Government have no intention of decentralising or devolving anything. They are intent on retaining power in their own hands, and on determining directly what local government should be able to raise and spend. The financial and functioning structure of local government will result in disillusionment and in people being increasingly frustrated. There is a danger of democracy being nothing more than a charade.
That is why we are against the way in which the commission is to operate. We do not agree with the Government's view of local government merely as an appendage to the central state rather than as a partner in a pluralistic democracy. We want to encourage people to partake in the delivery of local services and to stand for elected office so that they may take pride in the civic functions by contributing to the enhancement of the wellbeing of the people around them, and by being able to sustain and protect their environment. Instead, the financial system and the structure and functions proposed for local government would reduce it to a pale shadow of what we have understood it to be over the last 100 years.
The proposed operation of the commission reflects the Government's contempt for local democracy. The Government intend that local authorities should be dealt with piecemeal, one by one, with Labour-controlled counties being tackled first. The Government intend to carry out the structural changes in a way which leads to the abolition of Humberside, Cleveland, Avon, Derbyshire and Lancashire, simply because they happen to be Labour authorities.
The Government do not propose to act logically or to take a comprehensive look at England as a whole so as to ensure that the structure can be fitted together as a complete jigsaw. They mean to adopt a "hide and seek" version of making a jigsaw, where bits of the jigsaw emerge one at a time and people are expected to guess what the final picture will look like. That piecemeal approach will lead to blight. As local authorities are picked off one by one, they will lose their senior staff, who will seize the opportunity to move to other authorities. There will be a bonanza for the metropolitan and London areas which, in the key areas of education and social services, will be able to call on the expertise from the counties facing abolition before the district authorities, which are the aspirants to

take over those functions, can organise themselves logically to offer posts or provide a guarantee of quality of service.

Mr. Paul Channon: I understand that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with the Government about various activities of local government. If by some chance —or mischance, depending on one's point of view—he were to have responsibility for dealing with the legislation under a Labour Government, what would he do about the commission? There is a great deal of interest in that. The people want to know what would happen if Labour won. Would Labour go ahead with the legislation or repeal it? Would Labour change the commission or allow it to proceed so that the reform of local government, which most people accept is long overdue, may take place in a reasonable period of time?

Mr. Blunkett: In the one day available to us under the guillotine in Committee, we made the position clear. We made it clear that we were in favour of a comprehensive approach to the reorganisation of local government, and that we wished the commission to operate through panels dealing with different parts of the country, being able to take consensus and agreement where they were offered, and being able to report back where there were difficulties, so that within a rapid time scale—two years would be the preferred operational time scale—we could see a pattern of local government emerging across the country. The commission could report its findings, enabling local government to be reorganised in a sane and rational fashion, providing stability for existing services prior to the final report and providing a sensible and rational means for the transfer of services to the new designated authorities. Finally, it could offer the kind of guarantees for whose provision the 1972 reorganisation, with all its failings, served as a useful model.

Mr. Douglas French: Would that plan include the continuation of some two-tier authorities, or is what is being advocated a uniform single-tier system?

5 pm

Mr. Blunkett: It seems to us that there is little point in reorganising local government across the country if we end up with a shambles on our hands. Some counties will appeal to the Government to remain county councils, with their district councils continuing to act as they always have, while a neighbouring authority has unitary status having abolished its county and transferred what functions remain to the district. We illustrated that point in Committee: what is at issue is not whether one county should remain while others are removed, but the way in which authorities within a county would have to be dealt with if it was not clear that there should be a presumption of unitary status.
We do not have to have the same uniform status across the country. We are talking about numerical parity or saying that authorities must be of similar size. We are aware of the need for diversity and sensitivity. Some authorities have an identity of community even though they are small numerically or geographically difficult to operate. We recognise that such factors will have to be taken into account.
What we cannot countenance, however, is a shambles where one or two authorities claim unitary status within a county and the rest of the county has to be reorganised to


fit in with them. We cannot have a string of authorities across a major county—the example that we gave in Committee was Essex—claiming that they should have unitary status because of their identity of community, their sense of belonging and their urban nature, only to leave a rump of a county with a disgruntled population, which wanted not a third of the original county or half the original county but the whole county or unitary status. We shall be faced with a shambles whereby people claim that they want to retain the county but retain only part of it. The county will be a shadow of its previous self without its core identity, and in some cases with the prospect of being divided in two by unitary authorities which cut right across it.

Mr. French: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that the local government commission would recommend unitary status for some authorities without paying any regard to what was left over?

Mr. Blunkett: The consultation paper and the proposal before us would allow just that. That is why I say that we must choose between unitary and two-tier authorities. Once one begins the process of providing unitary authorities within a county area, one will have to decide what is to happen to the rest of the county. There is a logic to it.

Mr. William O'Brien: Paragraph 5.

Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend reminds me that paragraph 5 of the consultation paper deals with the matter, although we do not need the consultation paper—only intelligent and rational thinking—to realise that when some authorities press for unitary status they will affect the status of other authorities with which they have a relationship within the county shire area.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The same is happening in education. For instance, competition between schools will mean that people will head for a school that is reputedly a good school with no thought for the one that they are leaving behind, which will become a sink school if the matter is left to the Conservatives.

Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend has put his finger on it: "I'm all right, Jack, and the devil take the hindmost" is what the Government's policy is all about. Presumably they would say that, so long as some authorities get what they are after, everyone should be satisfied. We cannot have it both ways, however. We cannot have the existing county, with the existing county structure, if some districts within it become unitary authorities.

Mr. Channon: I think that that is a bad analogy. In Essex, and in a great many other counties, there are districts which were old county boroughs, for example. It would be perfectly possible for those old county boroughs to become unitary authorities in their own right without affecting the rest of the county at all—if that was what people in the county wanted.

Mr. Blunkett: It would affect the rest of the county which, at the moment, incorporates those former county boroughs. The minute one tries to reverse the arrangements and return to the county boroughs—and there is some dispute in some areas as to whether only the former county boroughs should claim unitary status—one affects the organisation of every key county service, which

then has to cope with the change. One must change the operation of education—in so far as it remains part of local government—of the social services, of highways and of everything else. The minute one makes a decision in repect of one authority, there will he a chain reaction.
That is why we believe that there should he a comprehensive approach, rather than a piecemeal approach whereby some authorities are dealt with first arid others gradually over what the Minister of State has described as a likely five-year time scale. We should view these matters as a whole. We should review the arrangements throughout the country and come up with comprehensive proposals. We should announce them in two years' time, allowing for a period of consultation during which representations could be made and during which we could sort out disagreements.
We could then move forward in a way which allows the existing authorities to transfer services in a stable and sensible way, maintaining the quality of those services while building up a new structure to enable those functions to be taken on. Unless we do that, we shall have a period of blight during which services in the existing authorities disintegrate and staff leave. The services will begin to fall apart before the new authorities have been established in a fashion that would allow those services and staff to transfer in an acceptable manner. That is why we shall be moving shortly on another matter—the staff commission —to which I shall come in a moment.
In new clause 3 we advocate a sensible, logical and well-thought-out approach. We have the option of finding a solution that will provide us with a lasting settlement for local government for generations to come or of accepting a piecemeal and fragmented approach which will result in dissatisfaction and continued calls for reorganisation and which will lead to our having to go through the whole process all over again in a few years' time. That would be very foolish indeed and most unfortunate for the populations of areas facing that shambles and that failure to provide quality. The outcome in terms of cost and quality would be most unsatisfactory. Moreover, it would reflect badly on the operations of the House and the way in which it has served local government badly over the past 13 years—another example of an ideological, value-driven approach rather than a logical approach taking into account the needs of local communities and responding intelligently to the demand for reorganisation.
We respect the demands for unitary authorities and for a return to the days when there was just one door on which to knock. We accept the need for accountability, which we applaud, to enable people to understand who is responsible for the services that they receive and who to hold to account for the results.
We want a reorganisation that would be lasting but, above all, a reorganisation that would be able to respond to the changing needs and aspirations of the population towards the year 2000. Instead, we face a proposition which would take away services rather than provide them, which would denude local government rather than complement those services that it already carries out, which would remove functions rather than build on them and restore them, which would give a piecemeal structure rather than a coherence that people could understand and respond to, and which would result in local government becoming even more the poodle of Westminster and Whitehall than a living part of our democracy enabling people to express themselves clearly and to have an


alternative point of view to respond to the different political, economic and social needs of a diverse country and, above all, to be able to provide for the community that they serve the kind of services that that community wants rather than what central Government wants.
It happens that the rest of Europe has moved in the direction that we are advocating—that is, devolving and decentralising, giving people power to decide for themselves, providing quality services by encouraging and enabling local authorities to act on behalf of their communities, and ensuring that people have genuine choice. There should be choice as to who should provide services, choice as to whether services should be in-house or privatised, and choice as to what kind of spending and on what local authorities should spend their money. Those are the choices—about ownership, responsibility and accountability—that people have had for the past century in respect of their education services, their social services, their housing, their local refuse collection and their local environment. Now we see a threat to take it away—the threat of a commission which, from its very inception, will be disabled by a Bill and by guidance which take away those powers and denude local government of those services.
That is why we are opposed to the way in which the Government are operating under clause 2. That is why we are vehemently opposed to clause 1 and to the way in which the Government, particularly in clauses 8 and 9, are ensuring that reorganisation is complemented by privatisation and centralisation. That is why we believe that the Bill is flawed. An opportunity that has been missed and an agenda that could have carried us forward together have been set aside and replaced by dogma—by the values that were set out by the previous Prime Minister—and with a not-so-hidden agenda that carries those values and principles forward into the 1990s.
We know that the present Bill will not be carried into fruition. We know that we shall have the opportunity to change the guidance to the commission and to change its operation, and to ensure that it can do the job as we have described—a welcoming of partnership in local government to ensure that people receive the services that they want and deserve. That is why we know that, in rejecting the Bill and putting forward the new clause, we shall be responsible for carrying through our propositions and not the ones that the Government have put before us.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the chance to speak in support of the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) and the other new clauses that Mr. Speaker has selected. I shall be relatively brief and put one or two points that deserve to be put at this stage. I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to do so, as I was not a member of the Committee.
On new clause 3, my hon. Friends and I believe that it is right that we should seek consensus on the structure for deciding the future of local government, and the more that that can be based on the views of the people, the better. One of the faults of the previous local government review was the artificial creation of structures of local government which did not do justice to the collective sense of belonging in very disparate parts of the country. As we travel around

the country, we realise the strength of people's commitment to certain areas and structures of government such as counties.
The right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) referred to county boroughs. It is about time that we went back to a structure that reflected that view. I agree with the purport of the right hon. Gentleman's intervention, and I disagree with the hon. Member for Brightside. It is quite wrong, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) said, to prescribe that there can only ever be one form of local government. That would be to make the same mistakes as were made before.
I cannot see why it is not possible for Essex to return to county boroughs for what is currently part of the county of Essex while the rest remains a shire county as a unitary authority. That is quite possible.
5.15 pm
Of course, we must make sure that the consultative process allows people to consider what the county would be like if we took out parts of it. However, county boundaries have changed. Counties such as Cambridgeshire have incorporated more than one county in the past. Therefore, the total geographical area of a county has changed over the years, and under that county structure we might find that people want district councils. It would be quite appropriate for the people of Cornwall to say that they want two tiers of government, a Cornish county council and five district councils. To say that they must have only one and that they must opt for a unitary authority flies directly against the wishes of many people throughout the country.
From experience, I know that people in some parts of Britain would be happy to have a unitary authority. The people of Herefordshire resented greatly the amalgamation with Worcestershire. They would be happy for the county of Herefordshire as it now is to be a unitary authority. If, for example, we were discussing a Welsh authority such as Powys, which is a huge county, it would be entirely right for the people to say, "We want a two-tier government. We might be happy with the county of Powys, but we would also want the local district to be Brecknock or Breconshire." I do not see any incompatibility in having unitary authorities in some parts of the country and two-tier government in others. The Labour party is going down its traditional road of wanting everything in one-form terms. Britain is not a one-form society; it is much more pluralist and diverse. Regions and countries are different, and we should respect that and allow people to decide.

Mr. Blunkett: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, in describing the situation that he foresaw in Essex, inadvertently used the term "unitary" in relation to the remainder of the county. We have never said that we are against the idea that a part of a county or, in very exceptional circumstances, a county itself could not be the unitary authority. We have left our minds open. Nor would we be against an authority which, in our terms, would be described as a region with districts under it, such as the one that the hon. Gentleman described for the south-west peninsula, although we are against the district county and regional model with one tier on top of another


tier until everybody cries for mercy because of the number of elections that are held and the number of people who are held responsible.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that our proposition ensures that we can retain parish and town councils, perhaps with enhanced status, which would satisfy the pluralism and diversity of which he spoke.

Mr. Hughes: May I return to parish and town councils in a moment? They are a different debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne and I, and many other hon. Members, are committed to the idea of parish, town and community councils and believe that they should continue.
The debate is both technical and a much wider political debate. I may have inadvertently suggested that Essex minus unitary county boroughs would leave a shire which could not be other than unitary. That is not our view. There could be a two-tier structure. There could be the county of Essex, with its cricket, history and all the rest, and under it a local district authority reflecting the local community. The fact that the county had lost some of what is currently Essex does not mean that it would not be possible to have two-tier government.
Let us take the south-west peninsula. The hon. Member for Brightside will not make his cause popular in the south-west. The people of Cornwall want to be Cornish. They want to be governed as Cornwall, not the south-west peninsula. They may be in favour of regional government devolved from Whitehall, but they certainly do not want to give up Cornwall for some greater south-west region with tiers only below that.

Mr. Blunkett: I did not say that.

Mr. Hughes: Well, the people of Cornwall do not want to belong to the south-west peninsula. They want to belong to Cornwall, not Devon and Cornwall. On many occasions that is the cause of their resentment.

Mr. Blunkett: I will not keep the hon. Gentleman long, but I do not want an avalanche of letters from the south-west peninsula. I was referring to the possibility of regional government. I am happy to accept the Cornish wish to be Cornish. Indeed, many have written saying that they want a region with districts under it. That is different from being a county. They certainly do not want a west region that stretches from Wiltshire all the way down to Cornwall. Given that the hon. Gentleman's party is in favour of regions, perhaps he will enlighten me on whether he is also in favour of that.

Mr. Hughes: I had David Penhaligon as a colleague for many years and now have his successor. There are many other strong Cornish voices in my party, including not only those who run our county council in Cornwall. So I assure the hon. Gentleman that if we ever dared to suggest a western region from Wiltshire to Cornwall we would be in considerable difficulty. We do not suggest that, and we never have.
It is important that we should be clear about our respective positions. Both the Labour party and my party believe in regional government. In that context, the debate about smaller geographical units—Devon and Cornwall, or Cornwall on its own—is yet to be resolved. The aspirations of the Cornish are to their own nationality. They would put it as strongly as that. My point was that

for unitary local government anything larger than Cornwall would be unacceptable. I know that from my visits and conversations with people there.
I wish to put in a strong plea to the Minister; I think that he will be sympathetic to it. It is about the wording of new clause 3 and other similar new clauses. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) has tabled a new clause which I guess comes from the same thought process and idea. I make a strong plea for smaller communities, especially in metropolitan Britain. Greater London—the area which both the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities and I represent—has suffered greatly as a result of the 1965 reorganisation of local government. So far the Government have resisted responding to voices in Greater London while they have not resisted voices elsewhere.
In this debate I am not arguing about the need for a regional authority for London. The Minister knows that my party and the Labour party believe that there should be such an authority. I am arguing about the natural local tier of local government. If I understand new clauses 3 and 14 aright, the local government commission will be asked to take account of certain objectives. New clause 14 describes them as:

"(a) to identify areas within which people expect to obtain most of their everyday services;
(b) to establish local government boundaries that facilitate the meeting of people's needs and the respecting of existing social organisation".

In London, that means areas smaller than boroughs of 215,000 people.
I want to put this point simply to the Minister. I am sure that he understands it, because he is a London Member. In London there is no legitimate tier of democracy below the London borough. I do not know the exact figures for Enfield—the Minister's borough—but Southwark consists of about 215,000 people. So the lowest tier of local government represents a community of about a quarter of a million people.
In London one is not allowed by any process to set up a parish or community council. Anomalously, London is the one part of Britain that is excluded by law from having such councils. I have sought to correct that by means of a London local government Bill in the past. I beseech the Minister to say in response to the debate that he and his colleagues are not against the commission recognising, as implied by the wording of the new clauses, that, for example, people in Southwark say loudly—as they do—that they want smaller borough councils and allowing them to have such councils. They want the size that they knew and could cope with, which was relatively small. If we are to allow district councils in the shires of England, we should allow smaller borough councils in the urban areas.

Mr. O'Brien: Before the hon. Gentleman moves off the point about smaller local authorities, is he saying that the functions of unitary authorities in the shire areas should also be passed to the smaller authorities that he envisages in the metropolitan areas?

Mr. Hughes: Our view is clear. The hon. Gentleman's party and mine agree that there should be a strategic authority for London to take on strategic planning, economic development and other functions. If we had such an authority, we should also have smaller borough councils, as we previously had, to administer matters such


as housing, social services and other provisions. Such a council is far more likely to deliver a user-friendly service. My local authority runs 60,000 properties. That is the housing stock of Southwark. That point has been made by other colleagues. It is effectively incapable of running that stock in a way that is responsive to the needs of the individual. People feel like numbers and are treated like numbers. I do not suggest that the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate that. People want a community service that is sufficiently close for them to feel that it is the same place. I will illustrate that simply.
A local authority in an area such as inner London may say to someone on the housing waiting list, "You cannot have a house in the place where you have lived all your life. You will go seven or eight miles away to a community which is completely different." For example, a person may be sent from Rotherhithe to Dulwich or Sydenham. But that is like saying to people in Halesowen that they must move to a village in south Herefordshire. That is the difference that is involved. It is bad for communities and for building up communities to do that. It is also expensive for the public purse. If communities and families are separated, they become dependent on public authorities for social support and not on the family and community that they know and love.
New clause 13 makes a simple proposition. It says:
The Local Government Commission shall, in making recommendations under this Part, have particular regard to the need to secure effective planning for environmental purposes.
All of us who have taken part in the debate about how best one can plan for environmental purposes know that it is important to consider what is the best tier of local government for planning. It is no secret that the planners of Britain—bodies which are competent and respected, such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England —are worried that if unitary government were imposed or if the county councils disappeared, the best tier for planning would disappear.
In certain subject areas we plan badly at present. For example, there are no coherent planning strategies for development planning along estuaries. When people are trying to protect wildlife, the countryside, fishing, birdlife or whatever, it is no answer to say that the county or local authority boundary goes up the middle of the estuary: on the right there is Essex and on the left there is Kent or on the right there is East Sussex and on the left West Sussex. There is often a need for coherent policy for coastal, marine and estuarial protection. I am aware that there is a specific new clause on estuarine and coastal areas. We will probably not reach it. I am using them as an example and I hope that the Minister accepts that. There is a good case for saying that one ought to consider that sort of issue together and consider environmental aspects.
The commission ought to decide whether a boundary will allow for a structure that will take into account environmental, planning and demographic considerations. My hon. Friends and I ask the House and the Minister to accept that it would not be harmful for that obligation to be imposed on the commission. We are not saying that it should take precedence, but it should be added to its lists of objectives.
I hope that the new clause will be acceptable, either in its existing form or in some other. My hon. Friends and I

dissent from the implied assertion of the hon. Member for Brightside. We expect that the Bill will become law before the general election, whenever that is. No doubt, the aim of the guillotine is to achieve that. On that basis, let us get it right as far as we can now. If the new clauses are acceptable and advantageous let us pass them. I hope that new clause 13 in particular, and new clauses 14 and 3—although I am not a signatory to the former—will be acceptable to the Government and will find their way into the Bill when we vote.

Mr. David Wilshire: Both the previous speeches had a common theme—let us get it right this time. I shall be the third person to say that. We do not often get a chance to put right fundamental wrongs about local government. Whatever the outcome of the general election, the Bill is probably here to stay, in some form or other: for heaven's sake, let us get it right while we are about it.
I shall comment briefly on new clauses 3 and 13 and speak to my two new clauses 14 and 17. Before I do so, I must make a couple of general remarks. First, I must thank two people. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) had the unenviable job in Committee of moving an amendment standing in my name which focused on the importance of local people to this debate, as distinct from councillors and council officers. My hon. Friend expressed my views accurately on that matter and I am grateful to him. It was a thankless task to try to work out what I was trying to say and he said all that needs saying—from my point of view—on the question of local people. If hon. Members wish to pursue the matter. I refer them to columns 521 and 522 of the Official Report of Standing Committee D on the Bill.
I must also thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State who, from time to time, has said nice things about the influence that I seem to have had on parts of the Bill. I am grateful, but I think that he would expect me to say that I am sorry that he took on board only some of the things that I had to say. I shall make one last attempt to persuade him to accept the rest.
The second general point is that I deliberately did not seek to intervene on the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) because I want to couch my remarks in non-party terms. That is why I did not take him up on arguments that I disagree with. I shall try to express my remarks in a way which will not excite him, although he will disagree with some of them. What I have to say could well raise a few eyebrows on both sides of the House. For example, I agree with much of what the Labour party has said today and previously, but I fundamentally disagree with some things which they have got wrong, and will say so. Also, the Government are correct in principle in what they are trying to do, but they have to get some of the detail right. Hopefully, there will be a bit of give-and-take on both sides of the House.
I agree with five of the seven points which the Labour party lists in new clause 3, although one of the five is incomplete. The trouble with three of the aspects of the new clause that I agree with is that they do not define in clear terms exactly what they mean. Let me explain. First, the Labour party stresses in new clause 3 the importance of local communities, but does not say what they are and how it would establish them. However, it is right—local


communities are important. Secondly, the Labour party refers to the importance of local government, but does not define exactly what it means. Thirdly, it says that the Bill must be understood by electors. My only quarrel with that is that it must be understandable to electors, residents, users of services and everyone else—not merely to electors —but that is a small point. Fourthly, the clause states that the whole system needs to be accountable, but does not describe what that means. However, I agree in general terms.
Where I fall out in a big way with Opposition Members is when they talk about service delivery. They seek to make that the same thing as defining local government when it is a separate issue. They also seek to draw into the new clause matters which I would describe as regional. They see them as part of strategic local government. For reasons that I shall explain, I do not believe that service delivery is the same thing as local government.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that he hoped that new clause 13 would commend itself. The sentiments in the clause are worthy and I support them entirely, but they have nothing to do with the Bill. If the new clause was tabled in a service delivery context, I would have no difficulty in supporting it.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said that we must define natural local communities but then said that if they do not suit environmental protection we should draw up something else. He cannot have it both ways. He is right that we must have some way to deal with an entire estuary, to take his example—

Mr. Simon Hughes: I did not say that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that one must define natural communities. However, environmental considerations should be taken into account by the Boundary Commission. They should go into the balance.

Mr. Wilshire: I shall pursue that later as it will become clear why I disagree and why that is not an issue when describing natural communities.
New clauses 14 and 17 seek to set out additional detail, which the Labour party has left out, and I hope that it will find them acceptable. The clauses also seek to show why service delivery must be separated from this discussion.
My new clauses seek to do five things. Paragraph (a) of new clause 14 seeks to define a local community for the purposes of the local government commission; (b) gives a definition of local government which is intended to make it clear to the commission what it is supposed to be setting up; (c) deals with the question of accountability and what the future of local government should be; and (d) seeks to separate out service delivery. New clause 17 explains how service delivery could then be dealt with differently.
We all agree that we want to define local communities, but what do we really mean by them? Most discussions that I have been party to, or listened to, start with the assumption that there is one thing called a local community and that all we need to do is to discover what it is, draw boundaries round it and all will be well, and we will not have to come back in two years to try to put it right. The trouble with that analysis is that we all belong to several different sorts of local community. It is vital that we understand the differences between them.
Let me give some examples of types of communities. We all belong to a household of some sort, we all come

from a village, a street or a housing estate; we all come from a town or a rural area, and from a county or a region. They are all local communities in one form or another.
If the local government commission is to get it right it needs to know which of those local communities it is supposed to be focusing on. All those communities have two things in common, which is why they are often confused. They are all part of the natural way in which human society organises itself. There are households, villages, towns and counties and, whether we like it or not, they are there and do not rely on Government to define them. Secondly, they are all territorial. One has only to look at what happens on the beach when one tries to stake out one's territory to realise how desperately territorial we all are.

Mr. McCartney: Who would risk lying on a beach under this Government?

Mr. Wilshire: I expect that you would rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I were to respond to that stupid intervention on beaches.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Gentleman should learn to be diplomatically deaf, as I am sometimes.

Mr. Wilshire: I am practising that, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you could give me some instruction on it at some other time.
The point about natural communities is that they are territorial and part of human organisation, but when we define them none of them owes anything to service delivery. As well as the differences between them, another aspect has been overlooked in the debate. Each community has a particular focus.
The household, for example, focuses on daily life. Anyone who does not consider that the household is part of social organisation should listen to those who argue for women's rights. They would then understand that there is a clear social organisation in the household, which women want to change. In the village, the street and housing estate the community focus is on self-help and in the town or area the focus of people is on the area within which their services will be delivered. When we consider counties or regions, we become locked into the issue of sub-cultural differences. I mention that because it is absolutely vital to note that, unlike the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, I have not referred once to a sense of identity because each type of natural community has a sense of identity. It is no use appealing to a sense of identity when trying to establish local government because each community has it.
If the household is a commune, its members will identify strongly with that community. If one asks a village resident in rural England, he will say that it is the place with which he identifies fiercely. If one speaks to the residents of the Falls road in Belfast, they will say that they identify strongly with that street.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): Brookside.

Mr. Wilshire: Yes, one could take that example. If one speaks to the residents of the Broadwater Farm estate, one will understand how closely they identify with it. Consideration of the question of identity will get us nowhere. If one speaks to people from York, they will say


that they identify with that town, but they will then take a further leap and say that they identify with Yorkshire. We have awful trouble in pursuing the issue of a sense of identity to establish what we mean by natural community for the purposes of local government. We all identify with many different communities of different sizes and we have to be careful when we consider them.
The second key issue that lies behind my new clauses is what we mean by local government. I broadly agree with the hon. Member for Brightside on what represents a good and secure future for local government. There are two definitions of local government. The first is that it is simply a vehicle for the delivery of local services; the second is that local government is part of the social fabric. The recent debate among Members on both sides of the House has tended to focus almost exclusively on local government as a vehicle for the delivery of services, which makes it an appendage of central Government. The hon. Member for Brightside said that it is increasingly being seen as an appendage. Conservative Members may have considered local government in that light, but Labour Members have also tended to do so.
The local government commission must avoid that and see local government as part of the social fabric and as something that can neither be created nor got rid of. If we consider local government in that way, we shall arrive at its true role and see it as part of society's organisation.
We arrive at local government's true role by my analysis of different types of community because each type focuses on something different. Each has a different role and that is their significance. The household may be informal, but it is an organisation. The village, street or housing estate has an organisation, which is typically the parish council. I support the view of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey that that concept exists in the countryside in medium-sized towns and in the metropolitan areas. That is part of the natural fabric, but the snag is that that concept does not equate to local government. We delude ourselves if we start talking about local government structures needing parishes in London. Social organisation requires them, but not local government. That is the key to my argument.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that an anomaly exists in one part of Britain alone, Greater London, where there is no formal democratic structure through which people can get together on their estates or in their areas to discuss issues? That is wrong and it should be corrected.

Mr. Wilshire: I support the hon. Gentleman's sentiments, but I question whether there is no structure. When the House deprives people of a formal structure for debate, such structures develop on a self-help basis, for example, with the establishment of residents' associations. I accept that they are not the same as a formal structure, but such associations develop when there is no alternative. That reinforces my point about the natural development of certain structures. The House cannot deny such developments, but it can make them more democratic. However, parish councils, which have a role in the future, are not part of the issue.
It is clear that people expect most of their daily services to be delivered to them by their town or local area. It is that level of organisation which is known as local government. On regions, I accept that a useful purpose could be served by regional assemblies. However, before any Opposition Member writes that down for future use against me—

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: It is too late.

Mr. Wilshire: No, it is not too late because we both mean something totally different.
I dispute whether one can effectively divide England, in sub-cultural terms, into the type of artificial regions for which some argue. Regions, in common with parishes, are nothing to do with local government—they are entirely separate. It is perfectly possible, as has been demonstrated in this country for a long time, to organise things without regional assemblies. Although I accept the theoretical sense of that particular model, that does not mean that I agree with their establishment. Should Opposition Members seek to dig out my comments to throw them back at me in the future, I hope that the detailed record will demonstrate that I am not as supportive of their case as they would like to think.
The other issue arising from my new clauses was mentioned several times in Committee by the hon. Member for Brightside—he hinted at it again today—and it relates to the need to enhance the role of local government. The interesting thing is that the whole House wants to do that. Various options for enhancing local government, including making it more accountable and democratic and improving its management, have been argued to and fro. The trouble with such an approach is that, unless one understands the role of local government, how in heaven's name can one enhance it? The new clauses will draw out for the local government commission exactly what the basic role of local government should be.
It will come as no surprise to people to learn that my approach rests on the concept of natural communities, which represent different levels of organisation. The role of local government is revealed by an analysis of natural communities. Just as each natural community focuses on something different, so the necessary level of organisation, be it parish council, local council or even regional assembly, which represents people in the community focuses on something different.
My analysis of communities has fundamental implications, which may, I fear, be unpalatable to both sides of the House. However, that analysis gives local government the opportunity to have a worthwhile, respected and secure future. Natural communities secure a healthy role for local government because the natural communities that we call local government—social territories, as I referred to them at the outset—are areas within which local people expect their needs to be met by local services.
It is clear from talking to local people about their services that they do not mind who runs a particular service. If people say, "We need a new supermarket; we do not have a decent supermarket in our area", they could not care less whether the supermarket is owned by somebody who lives in the town or in London or Glasgow. They simply know that they want a local supermarket. The issue of who owns what and provides what does not fire up people, which is no doubt why Labour Members will not take kindly to my analysis of the situation. Some of my


hon. Friends may not take too kindly to it, because when one speaks to local people about their needs they do not differentiate between needs that are met by services provided by local government and those met by anybody else. When they say that they want their needs met by services, they mean services in general.
If the role of local government means being involved in the provision of needs with services, local government must have a say in the provision and delivery of all services, not just those that it seeks to control for itself.

Mr. Allen McKay: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. My experience is that services provided by local government are better appreciated than are services provided by other bodies because locally provided services are identified with local people. They identify, for example, with local councillors or officials, rather than with a distant provider. To cite the example of a supermarket does not fit into this category because that is a straightforward shopping area. With services in general, particularly in small rural areas, people identify with services provided by their local authority.

Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman seems not to have understood the point I was making, which is that local people do not distinguish between services in the way he describes. The hon. Gentleman may think that certain services are better delivered by local government. I do not dispute that. But people do not compare the health service with local government services, supermarkets, solicitors or the water supply. They look at all services, irrespective of who supplies them, and the only point I am making in that context is that nobody would expect local government to deliver every service that local people use. I am sure that we can agree on that, and certainly we can agree that local government should not provide supermarkets.
The debate has focused almost exclusively on the services that local government controls. The hon. Gentleman's intervention made that point. But the real role of local government concerns all the needs of the people whom it represents and all the services that they require. So the role of local government is not the delivery of services but the addressing of needs. Hence the whole question of the enabling authority and meeting needs rather than delivering services. That is how the question arises because the real role of local government is to analyse the needs of all people, irrespective of the service, and to articulate the concerns and local priorities of all people.
Having done all that, it seeks to provide, if that seems appropriate, or to persuade others to provide, or to criticise other providers, or to assist in the provision of whatever service may be in question. Such assistance occurs from time to time, for example, by allowing planning permissions which might be socially desirable whereas, in the context of planning policy, it might not necessarily be so kindly disposed to grant permission. Rate or rent breaks and similar issues are other examples.
I argue that all of those activities are of equal worth. Yet for long we have been locked into a debate only about those services that local government itself delivers. That very debate brings local government into disrepute, not least when we say that it should not do it and Opposition Members say that provision is all that matters. In other words, local government has a role to play in all those service matters, but it makes no difference if the service

deliverer is private or voluntary sector or even central Government. Local government is involved in the whole process.

Mr. O'Brien: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the private sector can provide a planning procedure equal to that currently provided by local government? Is he also saying that the first stage of local communities—the parish councils—are not interested in planning? Is he not aware that the first consideration is planning and that people are concerned in the planning of their communities, which means that planning cannot be left to the private sector?

Mr. Wilshire: I did not say that the private sector could be left to deal with town and country planning. If the Official Report shows that I said that, the hon. Gentleman is right to criticise me. If he asks whether I believe parishes have a role in this whole process, the answer is that by saying that a community focuses on an issue as its prime concern does not mean that it must close its mind to everything else. It has a lesser role. I was identifying with the key or central role, and I appreciate that other interests come into this.
I maintain that service delivery is fundamentally different from the whole question of local communities, and this bears on a point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. Local communities as I have described them are biological, social and stable; a natural community is natural whether it is big, small or of medium size.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Did the hon. Gentleman vote in favour of the guillotine? Does he intend to talk out the Bill?

Mr. Wilshire: If I wanted to learn how to waste time and make the debate on my new clause continue until 10 o'clock, I would only need to study the Standing Committee reports to have a wonderful example of how to filibuster. Such tactics were regularly adopted by Opposition Members. I have not spoken for nearly as long as some Labour Members spoke in Committee. I have at least another hour and a half to go before catching up with the sort of length at which they spoke. I do not intend to delay the House for that length of time, but I must develop the point I was making about local communities being social and stable entities.
Service delivery depends greatly on technology and management and on being able to change the shape and size of things. That is the opposite of what a natural community is. The trouble is that both are territorial. Natural communities are territorial, as is service delivery, which is where the trouble starts. There is a temptation for people to try to make social territories and service delivery territories coincide. That is why we ended up in 1974 with artificial territories. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey wants smaller territories. In fact, he wants natural territories, whether they are small or big. I should have thought that the Scilly Isles, with a population of 2,000 people, was a natural community. Birmingham, with I do not know how many people, is probably also natural.

Mr. McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he means by social relationships and communities never coinciding with service delivery areas? That cannot be true for basic services such as waste disposal and collection. The development of household waste disposal services must relate to the houses from which the refuse is


collected, which means that the service must be based on the structure of the community, simply because the waste is collected from the community.

Mr. Wilshire: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The key point about emptying dustbins is that they are emptied from the back doorstep or the end of the drive. That is the important point, not whether the person coming to empty them is organised from Glasgow, London or locally. The point at which such a service is organised is of no consequence to the concept of the social community. The dustbins are in exactly the same place wherever the management is located.
6 pm
Every organisation except local government—that specialised area about which Opposition Members are so concerned—fully understands that the delivery of services is best organised service by service, that the territories for each service are unique to it, and that the optimum size of a service territory depends on the service. For example, one has only to compare the areas in which the national health service operates with those in which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food operates to understand that Ministries do not have the same service delivery areas. If we consider quangos and agencies, we find that the driving territories of the vehicle licensing centre at Swansea are totally different from the territories of the National Rivers Authority because they provide different services. In the voluntary sector, the Royal National Institute for the Blind organises its service delivery entirely differently from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; they offer different services with different optimum territories. In the private sector, no one would expect the regional organisation of Marks and Spencer to be the same as that of Tesco.
If everywhere else there is a clear understanding that service delivery territories should be determined on a service-by-service basis, why do we desperately try to force local government service territories to fit social territories? That is where all the trouble comes from.
If my analysis is correct and the Government are to separate the defining of social territories from service delivery territories, how are we to deal with the anxieties that have been expressed about the chaos that might follow? The hon. Member for Brightside expressed that anxiety and asked whether the measure would lead to the decimation of service delivery. New clause 17 seeks to deal with that. It says that the local government commission should define social territories and look for natural community areas in which people expect to receive services. Once those new unitary authorities have been set up, they will take over the functions of the existing district. There would be no difficulty with that because it would be a small change.
A possible approach would be to place the services provided by the county councils under the care of a "service trust", which would handle the services that county councils deliver now. They would take over the running of those services in the short term, while the unitary authorities work out ways to handle these services. Thus the service would continue, service trusts would be set up and, once the unitary authorities had found their feet, they would either draw up contracts with the service

trusts or they would ask a body like the Audit Commission whether they could take over a service themselves. In a separate process, the Audit Commission would then judge the best service delivery territories.
I support five sevenths of new clause 3. I would support new clause 13 if it were relevant, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State should think seriously about new clauses 14 and 17. I hope that he will accept them, but I suspect that he cannot at this late stage. In that case, I hope that he will think seriously about the guidelines that have been issued because I find it difficult to support them as they stand. If the Bill cannot take on board the points that I have made, the guidelines must do so. Otherwise, we shall not get it right and, whoever is next in government, we shall find ourselves in this same position again and again.

Mr. McCartney: Before the guillotine falls, I wish to make a brief contribution about the duties of the local government boundary commission. I expressed my concern on Second Reading, in Committee and during the debate on the guillotine motion, about the commission's role in taking evidence locally and its procedures for making recommendations.
I am worried about how the Government have set up the local government boundary commission's role in the Bill, because they have left out a unique and important part of it. The Local Government Act 1972 obliged the commission to seek the views of local authorities, local representatives and local community groups. It also made it clear that local people, having looked at the first draft of the boundary commission's recommendations, could make representations before a final decision was made. I have listened carefully to the Minister during previous debates, but I am unclear whether an appropriate appeals procedure will exist in respect of local investigations. That is important, although I do not see it as a party-political issue in the sense that the Government are controlling and managing the commission. A Secretary of State of any political party will be able to manipulate the commission's decisions if an appeals procedure is not set down in the Bill so that local people can have a real say in determining the final decision to be made, via the commission, by the Secretary of State.
The local government boundary commission is currently reviewing the position in England and Wales, and has made recommendations in my area and the neighbouring area of Knowsley. The initial decision would remove Knowsley borough council from the political and administrative map of England. Its services and geographical area would be added to various other local authorities in Lancashire and Merseyside, such as Liverpool local authority. However, through the appeals procedure more than 70,000 local objections were registered with the boundary commission. That weight of objection determined the outcome, and the boundary commission changed its recommendation.
The Bill will not give local people the ability to register an objection before a final decision is made by the Secretary of State if the local government boundary commission suggests either a partial change or total abolition of an authority. Furthermore, voluntary organisations cannot make proposals about the nature of the local authority, its geographical spread or its management. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been involved in all forms of activity in the voluntary sector, working with youth, children, housing


and the disabled. More than 600 types of voluntary organisation operate on a daily basis, directly or in conjunction with local authorities, in the delivery or preparation of services. Yet the Bill gives no idea how the voluntary sector can be involved in the consultation procedure as to the nature of the local authorities to be set up and the type of service that they will provide.
It is important that the Minister states clearly what he intends to place in the Bill or in regulations. Local organisations and, more importantly, community groups should have a statutory right of appeal when the boundary commission first makes proposals to the Secretary of State. They should be able to object to the proposals, and hearings should be held locally and not just at the commission's or the Department of the Environment's headquarters at Marsham street.
What guidelines will the Secretary of State lay down for the commission on setting out the procedures for local authorities and on the consideration of amendments to be put forward by the commission? The Bill is seriously flawed because it does not show how the commission will proceed in considering local areas of administration. The Secretary of State has already recommended the abolition of certain local authority units in north-east England and the midlands. Given that he has already intervened, how will the commission proceed in relation to the rest of England?
The Minister has not made it clear in the Bill or in discussions in Committee whether a statutory period of consultation will be set down, to be publicised locally through newspapers and other means, whereby the commissioner has to follow a strict timetable for the consideration of evidence sent in by local communities. The commissioner should publish his views on that evidence and set down another strict timetable within which those views should be considered and recommendations made.
The Minister owes it to the House to give a clear sign as to what input there will be from local communities. If the commission is to work and to be accepted as a non-political organisation which will not be manipulated by Government, we must have those safeguards. More importantly, local communities must have the ability to influence the commission's decisions.

Mr. Michael Alison: I wish to make a brief point about the financial constraints latent in new clause 3, which are not so specific as I would wish. There is an important need to assess the economic cost of change in the local government review process. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading that considerable weight had been placed in the draft guidance on the need to demonstrate that there is an economic case for change.
Paragraph 14 of the draft guidance states that
change to the structure of local government should be worthwhile and cost effective.
Given the inevitable upheaval and cost involved in reorganisation, I warmly support the Government's emphasis on the need for proper justification in cost terms. In that connection, I welcome the issue on 11 February of the so-called CSL report, which the Government commissioned to advise both on costs and benefits relevant to the work of the commission and on a consistent methodology against which the commission can judge

proposals for change. That is a reassuring recognition by my right hon. Friend of the central importance of assessing costs and benefits in the forthcoming review.
I believe that the report is currently out for consultation with local authority associations. It is a useful starting point, and effectively dispels any notion that a blank cheque approach will be taken to that aspect of reorganisation. However, it was not always thus. The cost of the last major local government reorganisation, in 1974, was not evaluated at the time and I believe that it has never been fully costed. An estimate of £280 million has been made for the cost of the 1974 reorganisation, but the figure is likely to have been far higher, particularly when one recalls the early retirement pensions of town clerks, borough treasurers and the like, which would continue for some time. I am glad that my right hon. Friend's approach to the present proposals for change is more pragmatic and flexible. Economic cost and cost benefit factors must be properly monitored and measured. I am glad that the adage of the late President Harry Truman, "If it ain't bust, don't fix it", is to be allowed some influence and recognition.
6.15 pm
To return to a theme that I touched on when we last debated the Bill, a case can be made—at least for my own county of North Yorkshire—for keeping a second tier in operation, albeit in an attenuated form, where huge tracts of territory exist in local government terms as in the case of the premier county, the largest in the country.
I wish to put in a good word for the counties which, by and large, have proved themselves prudent arid economical units of government. For 1992–93, counties' spending variation from the grant-related expenditure-standard spending assessment formula, before use of reserves, is minus 0·1 per cent., compared with the districts' variation of plus 11·6 per cent. Although they are main service providers, counties will add a mere £5 on average to each charge bill in 1992–93. In the past 11 years, average county spending, which approaches one half of all local government spending, has been just £80 million above the Government's desired level, compared with spending by other authorities taken together of £1·3 billion above the Government's desired level. I hope that the local government commission will not disregard a system which produces such budget-conscious authorities.

Mr. Wilshire: My right hon. Friend is quoting from the voluminous paperwork of the Association of County Councils. Everything that he is saying relates to service delivery. The trouble is that some of the natural communities which exist do not conform to the big, centralised form of service delivery approach argued by the ACC.

Mr. Alison: I fully appreciate that the ACC has deposited on us a voluminous amount of facts and figures, and I have worked hard to boil them down to a five or 10-minute speech, as I believe that they are valid.
I shall open up the cost benefit analysis in more detail. The initial assessment of the Associaiton of County Councils is that the creation of unitary authorities based on present districts would cost more than £300 million per year for management and administration, compared with the present system, which is a substantial net addition to local government costs. Those costs represent the cost of breaking up 39 counties with 88 per cent. of the


expenditure, as against abolishing 296 districts with 12 per cent. of the expenditure. We must recognise that a district takeover of the county councils would lead to twice as many management structures, chief officers, and so forth.

Mr. Martlew: The second tier of officers within the county council structure is often organised on a district level, so could we not cut off the top tier and make the second tier the chiefs of the new districts, thus saving money?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I am not saying that the case is proven that the counties—even my own county of North Yorkshire—should stay as they are, or that the districts are too small and numerous to be the order of the day. I am saying that we need to evaluate the costs involved. I am not saying that those rather startling cost figures should be decisive. I fully support the argument that weight should be given to community identity and loyalties—as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) strikingly brought out in his speech—if we are to have effective and convenient local government as set out in the commission's brief.
We all know and accept that democracy can be costly, just as justice under the rule of law cannot be had on the cheap. The notion of effective and convenient local government, however, includes the idea of economical and stable local government. We must not lose sight of the fact that small authorities might not be viable in terms either of the unit cost of their services, or of the stability and robustness of their finances—and some districts are very small.
Services in 250 districts account for less than £15 million per year. County council services on average account for £500 million per year. The idea of course is that the district minnows should grow a bit and the county Titans should decline a bit. But let no one imagine that an Alice-in-Wonderland medicine, simply labelled "Take Me", as in the famous story, will produce the changes in size, as it did for Alice, with no prescription charge payable for the medicine. The change will cost money.
The recent publication of the CSL report and the Government's intention to issue detailed guidance to the commission on the way to assess the costs and benefits of structural change are timely, essential and welcome. This time we must cost the menu in advance. Together, the criteria set out in the Bill and the proposed guidance to the commission will help to give us a durable and sensible basis for decision-making about future local government structure and the extent to which change is needed. I hope that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister of State will give continuing attention to the validity of the cost evaluating structure which they have reasonably and sensibly built into the system of the commission's review.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: I shall be very brief, although, like many other hon. Members, I wanted to say a good deal. We are governed by a guillotine motion and I must defer to my hon. Friends—indeed, to hon. Members on both sides of the House. We want to vote fairly quickly, if vote there be.
I consider it shameful for the House to be deprived of an interesting debate on the whole future of local government by the imposition of a guillotine on what is

essentially a constitutional Bill—as has been revealed by every contribution to this interesting debate that we have heard so far.
I agree with nearly all of what was said by the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). Let me issue a plea on behalf of county councils. As I told the House on Second Reading, I am an honorary vice-president—completely unpaid—of the Association of County Councils. Let there be no "oohs" and "aahs"; I do not get a penny for it.
I am proud of what county councils do. They are responsible for 88 per cent. of local government expenditure and, of the vast number who are employed by them-1·25 million—only six in 100 are employed centrally in administration. That means that the counties are giving service to the community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) should consider these points carefully. County councils meet every one of the criteria specified in new clause 3 and this is our last chance to tell the local government commission exactly what we want it to do. That is the purpose of the debate.

Mr. Wilshire: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Oakes: I am sorry, but I cannot give way, because of the time constraint.
In my view, all the new clauses point to county councils being the most suitable structure to deal with—for example—environment and planning matters, which must be dealt with on a wider basis. That is particularly true of new clause 13, tabled by Liberal Democrats and presented very ably by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
I thought at the beginning of the speech by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) that he was on my side: I went along with what he said about the need for a diversity of authorities. However, when he began to talk about the establishment of a services commission on behalf of unitary authorities, I realised very quickly that he was descending into the undemocratic shambles described by my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside.
If we want effective and convenient unitary authority local government, we should look to the county councils. My hon. Friend the Member for Brightside said that, in exceptional cases, the existing county council might be the proper authority; in my view, that might be the norm, although it is possible that exceptions would evolve from such circumstances.
Winding up the Second Reading debate, the Minister of State said that the county councils might exist, but not necessarily for administrative purposes. I certainly do not agree with that: it would create a sort of Lord Lieutenancy, and county councils would have nothing specific to do.
I am strongly in favour of new clause 13. We cannot have 296 unitary authorities deciding on environmental planning matters, whether they involve a region, the Government, Parliament or any other body. When dealing with the environment, we should start on a world basis and work down, rather than starting on a unitary basis and working up. The environment affects us all.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey rightly mentioned estuaries and the way in which they divide counties. I have encountered a good many problems in regard to the Mersey estuary, because two counties are involved. If responsibility for such matters spread to


include unitary authorities, the shambles referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside would unquestionably result. That applies not only to water, but to air—pollution and the action of CFCs, for example. Such matters must be dealt with initially on a world basis, then on a European basis, and finally—at the lowest level—on a county basis.
I promised to be brief and I have put in my word for county councils. I agree with what the right hon. Member for Selby said about the efficiency of county councils and I strongly urge the local government commission, when considering the future structure of local government—which is so important to democracy—to take into account the historic role that counties have played for 1,000 years. I ask the commission to consider the clear identity that they are given in the minds of individual residents, and the efficiency of county government in this country.
As the right hon. Member for Selby pointed out, the cost of transferring government from county to unitary authorities would be considerable and would greatly disrupt the work of staff. The setting up of a staff commission should be considered, because the Bill will place many jobs in jeopardy, and confusion will result. I urge the commission to give serious consideration to the establishment of county councils as the norm.

Mr. French: I shall detain the House for only a few moments. I wish to highlight the fundamentally illogical position adopted by Labour Members.
In his concluding remarks, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) spoke of the need to enhance local decision making, to ensure that people obtained the services that they wanted and deserved. He referred to the need to give people choice. Those are noble and worthy sentiments, but the hon. Gentleman went on to adopt a position that, in my view, would make it impossible for Labour to fulfil such sentiments. As my intervention elicited reasonably clearly—I hope—the hon. Gentleman would not allow the exercising of choice to extend to a decision by local people that they would prefer two-tier to one-tier authorities.
The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either he is deciding to give people proper and meaningful local choice or he is not. If he is, that choice must, by definition, extend to allowing them to opt for two-tier authorities and not imposing unitary authorities on them.

Mr. Derek Enright: Would the hon. Gentleman also give a vote to allowing locally accountable people to decide whether they wanted regional civil servants to be sent out to govern their lives and make decisions for them? That is what happens at present, but it could easily be dispensed with if they were involved more closely with county councils or with other forms of regional government.

Mr. French: With respect, I do not think that that is the issue that we are discussing. We are discussing unitary authorities. That brings me to what was said by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). He, too, seemed to adopt a fundamentally illogical position He seems astonished to hear me say that; let me explain.
The hon. Gentleman entered what was, in many ways, an understandable plea for appeal procedures to be written on the face of the Bill, so that local objections could be aired and a local hearing could take fully into account the position of local people. That is perfectly reasonable as far

as it goes. However, the hon. Gentleman did not go on to explain what would be his position if such an appeal favoured the retention of two-tier authorities. As his party apparently does not believe in allowing such an option, the hon. Gentleman would automatically have to refuse an appeal based on such grounds—and that, surely, is an untenable position.
The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) put in a strong plea for county councils to become the norm. His speech revealed again the divisions that clearly exist within the Labour party in regard to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman starts with the preconception that the county councils have so much merit that only in very exceptional circumstances would they be dismantled in favour of a district authority.
The Labour party's approach would force a preconceived formula on to local people, notwithstanding the fact that they may have expressed disagreement about the proposed change, or that they may have expressed a strong preference—possibly as strong as that expressed by residents in the area represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison)—or that they may have said that they would prefer the two-tier arrangement to be retained. The Labour party would deny them that choice and force the single-tier authority upon them. The Labour party cannot claim on the one hand to he the champion of local democracy and on the other to adopt the formula that it has adopted here.

Mr. Martlew: My right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) has, I believe, argued the wrong case. If one wants to argue the case for county councils, the right case to put forward is that made by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) for a two-tier system. No case can be made out for a unitary authority to be based on the county council of Cumbria. I speak as a former chairman of that county council.
Cumbria is the second largest county, North Yorkshire being the largest. I am appalled by the idea that the county council should have responsibility for housing. It would be impossible to administer. Carlisle and Barrow, the two centres of population, are 90 miles apart. The Association of County Councils ought to have tried instead to keep the two-tier system. I am in favour of the unitary system, as are my Front-Bench colleagues.
New clause 13 deals with environmental protection. I have already asked questions about the future of the national parks. At the end of January the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, referred to the need for new legislation to cover the national parks. I understand that the proposal is that all national parks should be based on the Lake District and Peak district model.
I am concerned about the funding of the national parks by any local government structure. The Government pay 75 per cent. towards the funding of the Lake District national park. The county council raises a precept for the other 25 per cent. The people of Cumbria, therefore, have to pay £750,000 towards the running of the national park. My constituents have to pay £150,000 towards that total sum of £750,000. No part of the national park, however, forms part of my constituency.
If the national parks are to be affected by any change in local government, we shall have to think again about their


funding. It is not right that the local population should have to pay towards the cost of running national parks. They are provided for the benefit of the whole nation, not just the local community. National parks lead to local communities having to put up with inconveniences that people who live in other parts of the country do not encounter.
When the Government consider the funding of national parks, they should decide that the local community ought not to be burdened with the precept. If they decide otherwise, may I suggest to them that it is only right that those communities who face the precept should have the right of representation. At present, my local authority has no representatives on the board of the Lake District national park. I hope that the Minister will clarify the role of the local government commission in terms of the national parks.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): I notice a certain restlessness on the Opposition Benches, as though Opposition Members are keen to get to the Division. I shall speak for no longer than is strictly necessary, but I must reply to the points raised in the debate.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is concerned about smaller communities in London. I am familiar with that question. My own borough, like so many other London boroughs, was previously three different boroughs, so I understand his concern. We have to decide where it would be beneficial to bring about unitary government in England. We are not adamant about its introduction everywhere. Given, however, that that is one of our considerations and given also that London and the metropolitan authorities already have unitary government, we do not propose that the local government commission should look at the structure of local government in London. That will be a disappointment to the hon. Gentleman.
The local government commission will be in existence for a long time. Different views may be taken at different times. The commission will be empowered to look at boundaries in London. That might mean the re-emergence of an historic county that lies mainly within London today—Middlesex. The local government commission might want to consider that issue.
The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) seems to have misunderstood the position. I have taken no view about whether we should have unitary authorities in some places based upon counties or upon districts. I have not said that counties would be reduced to historic, non-administrative counties. What I have said is that in some places, whatever the result may be regarding the administration of local government, it could be that, when looking at the boundaries, the local government commission might wish to recommend the re-emergence of historic counties on account of the fact that in some places the historic county, in which somebody is deemed to live, is a matter of great concern and consequence.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for dealing with the point, but will he confirm that there is nothing to preclude, according to the precise wording of the Bill, smaller boroughs—unitary by nature in terms of their powers in London—from being a possible

consequence of the commission's recommendations? Furthermore, will the Minister confirm that, separately from the Bill, he will get rid of the issue of the parish, at community council level, which is not governed by the Bill but which is an anomaly because London cannot have that, lowest tier of democratic responsibility and accountability?

Mr. Portillo: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that because boundaries are included in the Bill, that makes it possible to look at boroughs of different sizes. However, I do not want to mislead him. It is not the Government's intention to look towards changing the boundaries of the current boroughs in London. However, I have said that boundary issues can certainly arise in London, both between boroughs and in terms of boundaries that concern historic counties which we might wish to have considered at some point. However, there is nothing in the Bill to exclude the local government commission from considering boundaries and arriving at different arrangements, so long as they remain unitary and do not change the structure of local government in London.
We continue to think about parishes. We may want to publish a consultation paper in due course. That does not commit me to any course of action in London, but it certainly means that the parishes continue to be on our mind.
On the subject of estuaries, when the local government commission reports to the Secretary of State, it may recommend that joint arrangements are necessary. It may even recommend to the Secretary of State that he must impose joint arrangements. The Secretary of State has the power to impose joint arrangements. Therefore, a joint arrangement could be used in the case of estuaries, or in the case of important coastline issues.

Mr. Martlew: Can the Minister deal with the Solway Firth, part of which is in England and part in Scotland? Could joint arrangements be made for the estuary there?

Mr. Portillo: I hope that it will be possible to reach voluntary agreement. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this part of the Bill deals only with England. I recognise that such cross-boundary problems arise, but I hope that they will be dealt with by voluntary arrangements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) made an interesting and intelligent speech. He has been influential in the drafting of the Bill and the draft guidance that, ultimately, will be considered by the local government commission. He powerfully made the point that there are two different sorts of territory—areas where people expect their needs to be met and areas across which it may be efficient to deliver services to people. I think that he has helped members of the Committee, and now hon. Members, to understand that such differences exist.
The question has always been how much we include in the Bill. I believe that we should include the essense of the local government commission and not try to include every nuance and consideration because it would become extremely unwieldy.
In Committee, the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne were advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). On reflection, I have decided that we do not need to amend the Bill. There are two tasks at the heart of the job that we are asking the local government commission to do—it should


reflect the identities and interests of local communities and it should look out for effective and convenient local government.
On the second point, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne expressed a fear that is not well placed. Perhaps because that phrase is drawn from previous legislation, he has drawn the conclusion that effective and convenient local government means other than effective and convenient for local people. To me, it means convenient and effective for local people, not convenient and effective for local government; nor does it mean convenient and effective to existing institutions of local government. I believe that the consumer comes first.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne has made an important point. I do not agree to amend the Bill, but I agree that we need to reflect some of those points in the guidance that we give the commission. My hon. Friend reasonably said that if I was not able to accept his new clauses he would seek an assurance that I would reconsider the guidance. I give him that assurance.
The Bill goes some way to meeting some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne made. If one considers together the two needs of reflecting the interests and identities of local communities and of effective local government, it omits the householder in the street but retains the town and county as possibilities. It is extremely important that the commission should listen to local people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne knows, I intend shortly to issue draft procedural guidance that will set out the stages through which I expect the local government commission to proceed in establishing the interests and identities of local communities and the means by which it consults and draws its information.
6.45 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne will be interested in that and in the studies of communities that I shall publish at the beginning of next week. Those studies have considered how communities identify themselves and the geographical data that might help us to identify communities. His comments on that work would be extremely welcome.
The CSL report was welcomed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in a different context from the welcome given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne is studying that report, and he will have seen in the list of intangible benefits a first attempt to establish a community index, which, among other things, seeks to identify what people regard as important in their local community.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby was concerned about structural change. I confirm that that is an important matter, although, as the CSL report says, the costs and benefits that are tangible and easily quantified must eventually be set against the costs and benefits that are intangible and which constitute the community index that I have just described.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) began by regretting that our debate was guillotined. That is his party's fault. Unfortunately, it decided to waste a lot of time in debates Upstairs. I cannot regret that we are giving a fair amount of time to consideration of part II, which is an important part of the Bill. This evening, we have had one of our most serious

and effective debates on the subject. If the hon. Member for Brightside wants to get on to part I, that is in his hands rather than mine.
The hon. Member for Brightside expressed regret that there is no consensus on the subject. It took a real effort by the Labour party for there to be no consensus on the structural reform of local government. The initial reaction of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) was to welcome the establishment of the local government commission and the moves being made by the Government. It took an incredible hand-stand—an incredible fixing and changing of the hon. Gentleman's mind—to manufacture some disagreement with the Government.

Mr. Blunkett: Perhaps the Minister will confirm that, on the final day of the Committee stage, I told him that we would be willing to co-operate in the establishment of the commission and its work in return for his being willing to consult us about a balanced and reasonable membership—an offer that was rejected by the Minister.

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman is not being entirely accurate. I reassured him that the membership will be balanced. He wished to be consulted not on ballots but on its membership, which is a matter for the Government and will remain so.
There is a danger that, in all this nit-picking by the Labour party, we may miss the importance of part II, which is a remarkable opportunity and a most unusual piece of legislation. It establishes a local government commission to discover how people view themselves and their communities and how they wish to be governed.
The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) wanted to know about the procedures by which the local government commission would proceed. He wrongly thought that there was an appeal procedure under the local government boundary commission. I propose that the local government commission should move in line with the local government boundary commission procedures. It will start a review with publicity and consultation, will take into account the representations that it receives in drawing up draft recommendations, will publish and consult on its draft recommendations, will take account again of representations in preparing final recommendations and will publish and submit its final recommendations to the Secretary of State. There will then be a further opportunity for public comment to the Secretary of State before he makes an order giving effect to the commission's recommendation, which will then be debated in Parliament. It is a process of many stages, which proves that we wish to be reasonable and to take the opinions of local people with us at all times.
What is remarkable about part II is that it enables different structures to emerge in different places. That diversity, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) paid tribute, offends the Labour party. It complains that local people will not be able to shape events, so what does it propose? It proposes unitary authorities everywhere, whether or not people want them. It proposes annual elections everywhere, whether or not people want them. It also proposes a big bang solution with everything done on one day as in the 1970s, even though members of all parties believe that that is not the correct approach.
On top of that, the Labour party proposes that we should impose regional government although there is no evidence that most people in England have any wish for it whatsoever. Because of a possible untidiness that might arise in Essex under one of the plans which the hon. Member for Brightside has in mind, it is important to him that the people of North Yorkshire represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby should have no opportunity to argue for two tiers of local government if that is what suits them. The Labour party puts forward its usual solution—everything must be standardised and socialist and, inevitably, short lived.
The hon. Member for Brightside argues about the removal of functions from local authorities. Whenever we discuss finance in the Chamber, the hon. Gentleman complains about the enormous burdens thrust on to local government, but when he wants to argue about structure, he says that all their functions have been removed from them. He does not even blush at the obvious inconsistency between those two positions.
The hon. Gentleman says that he is concerned about satisfying local people, but he has never understood that the case for local government—for people taking decisions about their own lives and what happens in their communities—is not necessarily the same as that for local authorities. He always argues for local authorities, but never argues for local people.
The hon. Member for Brightside also talks about the need for choice in housing and education. All the people who have been living under Labour authorities will have let out a belly laugh when they heard that. The first opportunities in housing and education that have been given to many people have been given under this Government's reforms, a point recently recognised in an article in The Sunday Times by two American authors who rightly said:
The Conservatives are now building an unbreakable bridge between the Government of this country and the underprivileged who demand better services in education and better services in housing and have suffered from poor services from Labour local government for far too long.
We are offering the House a truly remarkable piece of legislation. It is unusually enlightened in wishing to identify the true aspirations of local people and to translate them into a system of local government with which people can identify. In return, the Labour party can offer only a system of local government devised in Whitehall and imposed on local people all in one go in one big bang, a system which is standardised and socialist in outlook. Hon. Members will no doubt join me in rejecting the new clause and accepting the spirit of part II of the Bill which is a truly remarkable step forward in identifying the interests of local people.

Mr. Michael: It is very disappointing to hear the Minister merely playing to his own Back Benches. In his final paragraphs he threw reason to the wind and ranted through a Conservative central office brief in a way that insulted hon. Members' intelligence. He had to find two Americans to give purported support to the Government's approach to local government. The only bridge between the Conservative party and the underprivileged is the fact that the Government have created the underprivileged and

have caused pain and misery to people, not least in the way in which they have attacked local government and the services that people need.
The Minister thought that he detected agitation among the Opposition. What he detected was anger because he and the Conservative party are frustrating debate on important issues affecting the lives of ordinary people. This debate has demonstrated clearly how a guillotine stimulates long speeches from Conservative hon. Members in order to mop up the time available for debate without changing or improving the legislation. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) about the Conservative party's outrageous disrespect for constitutional issues as illustrated by tonight's guillotine. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said, when the Minister says, "It is not our fault", he is merely parroting a ministerial cry which, after 13 years, comes a bit thick.
I shall not be drawn into the debate about counties and districts because I hesitate to be drawn into any argument about local government in England. However, I shall say what I have said to colleagues in Wales. It is a question not of county or district but of the appropriate element of local government for a given area. What is important, and what the Government have run away from, is the setting of the right criteria on which the unit of local government will be decided.
The Minister's reply to the debate gave soft words but no substance. It gave commitments to nothing and reassurance to no one except perhaps to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire)—which is hardly reassuring to us—about the way in which the Minister will give direction to the local government commission. That worries us because we know that there is a hidden agenda to be drawn out after the election were the Conservative party—God forbid that it should be so—again to be in control of this country.
The trouble is that the Minister does not understand the arguments about local government. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham welcomed the idea of a local government commission, if it were to be done properly. That was also set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) and by those of us who speak on these matters in Scotland and Wales, those of us who care about and who understand local government.
The Minister says that membership of the commission is a matter for Government. We have seen what that means—we have seen it in Wales. I see the Minister of State, Welsh Office, hovering in the background. This is the first time that we have seen a Welsh Office Minister throughout our consideration of the Bill. In Wales, quangos have been appointed and packed with people who have failed to be elected to office in Wales. It is they who run Wales rather than people who have been elected. That is also the future that the Minister wants to impose on the people of England. The Conservative party does not want democracy to obstruct the way in which it runs the country.
The elements of the new clause set out a number of important functions. We might ask why only England will have a local government commission and why, if it is such a good idea, it has been omitted for Wales and Scotland. What is important in each of the three countries is the principles on which local government is reorganised, but that is what the Government have run away from in their approach to the commission.
My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) rightly reminded us about the commission which considered the boundaries in the 1973 reorganisation. There was a great deal wrong with that reorganisation, but one of the few things that it got right was that it used as building blocks the most local areas with which people identified and of which they felt a part in order to build the units of local government. The new clause, too, seeks to reflect the identities and interests of local communities and to secure the correct units for a structure that is comprehensible to the electors. People care about the unit of government which deals with local affairs, but the Government are not interested in these issues.
In response to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), let me say that we believe that there can be a variety of types of local government which suit different local areas, but the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) got into the county versus district argument instead of considering the unit appropriate for an individual area. It is that consideration which the new clause seeks to impose on the local government commission as the criterion on which decisions are taken.
We talk about promoting accountable local government, but the Government are certainly not interested in that. We also talk about cost effectiveness. The hon. Member for Spelthorne was right to say that it is usually a thankless task to work out what he is getting at. It was fine when he told us that he agreed with five of the seven points in the new clause, but he thinks that it could be better drafted. Unfortunately, he does not know the difference between refuse collection and refuse disposal, and he is clueless about the inter-relation of services appropriate to a local authority.
In the half-baked lecture on sociology to which he treated us, the hon. Member for Spelthorne complained that the new clause does not define what local government is. That is hardly fair because the Labour party, above all, has published documents and has gone into detail about the quality commission. We have said exactly what we think. We have clearly and well defined the nature and functions of quality local government to which we and local government aspire. The hon. Gentleman has criticised precisely what the Government are doing now—failing to define the functions that they consider should be exercised by local government.
7 pm
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) referred to the size of local government units dealing with housing. The Welsh Office commissioned a report which was published in 1989. It examined housing management in the local authority sector and in the housing association sector. The report was intended to say, "Housing association good; local authority bad." Surprise, surprise! It was an objective report which said that there were strengths and weaknesses in both styles of management. The report was quickly forgotten and buried by the Welsh Office because it was not interested in good practice and it was not interested in the right way to develop housing.
The problem is that the Government's policies have pushed housing associations into becoming too large to deliver the best quality management, which used to be their forte. We need to go back to providing the appropriate service, whether from the housing association

sector or from the local authority sector. We do not want the Conservative dogmatism which tries to wipe out one sector so that it cannot make a useful contribution.
The Government approach education by taking matters out of the hands of locally elected representatives. They are killing off the development towards tertiary education which has made such a positive contribution to the lives of many of our young people aged between 16 arid 19. They have placed a planning blight on our colleges.
If the Conservative party has its way, local government will be so damaged that there will not be a mechanism for the delivery of community care services. Community care is already a disaster which is being left for us to inherit when the Government go the way that they must before long.
Let us consider services for the mentally handicapped, for the mentally ill and for adults with learning difficulties. The Government have no interest in or understanding of the issues, as demonstrated by the Prime Minister's appalling answer in December. We need local government services to be provided on a basis which understands the local needs of people and which delivers that service in the way that is required by those hidden people.
Economic development, education, child care, transport, housing and planning affect the daily lives of ordinary people and that has not come out of the speeches by Ministers or by Conservative Members. That is why the local government structures that provide those services need to be right, and that is why the Minister and Conservative Members appear to have no interest in and no care for the local government structures that we shall have in future.
I could go on with the list of functions that are important to all of us. Local government cannot exist in a vacuum. It is about people and communities, which the Minister does not seem to understand.
The new clause contains a proposal to provide for the consideration of appropriate strategic issues at a regional level, which is important. It was tragic that today at the Dispatch Box the Prime Minister appeared to rule that out for the people of England, Wales and Scotland. The Prime Minister, Ministers and Conservative Members who will stand for election throughout the country will be held accountable for that. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said, it is an issue that needs to be addressed in detail. If the proposal in the new clause is not accepted, it will not be addressed in detail. We know what direction would be given by the Minister to the local government commission.
In answer to one of my questions recently, the Prime Minister said that he was in favour of subsidiarity. The problem is that the Prime Minister and Conservative Members do not understand the term. The Government are against subsidiarity because they are against passing power and decision making down to the most local level that is capable of dealing with issues and with the delivery of services. The Government are against subsidiarity within the United Kingdom, just as they are against democracy within the United Kingdom.
The Government have failed to accept the simple, healthy, democratic principles which are set out in the new clause. That exposes the Conservative party's aim to kill off local government in the United Kingdom and to dictate to local people what they shall do and what they shall get. It is outrageous for the Minister to accuse the Labour



party of the things of which he and his party are guilty. It is Labour which understands and respects the principles on which local government should be based.
On the Government's hidden agenda, I warn the Minister and the Government that local contract-placing bodies would not constitute local government. The job of local government is to build communities, not just houses. Co-ordination of inter-agency work is important. Law and order, to return to another item that has been abandoned by the Government, is not just a police job; it demands proper local authorities delivering integrated services.
We see today the nonsense of a Government who are out of step with European and worldwide moves to local democracy and the local determination of policies and priorities. We have heard the nonsense of Conservative Members who want to sort out the bit that suits them. They have jumped up to talk about their particular bits of Essex, or wherever, and they are not interested in the whole picture or in the development of integrated local government services, based on the right type of areas to serve local people and to meet the aspirations of local people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brightside has rightly exposed the Conservative party's outrageous intention to undermine local democracy in the United Kingdom. If the Government, as they appear to intend to do, vote against the new clause, they will demonstrate that they are not serious about the work of the local government commission. Even worse, they will demonstrate that they are not serious and do not care about local government at all. They will be condemned by their votes as surely as they stand condemned by their words and policies.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 276.

Division No. 94]
[7.07 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Clelland, David


Allen, Graham
Cohen, Harry


Alton, David
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Armstrong, Hilary
Corbett, Robin


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ashton, Joe
Cousins, Jim


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cryer, Bob


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cunlitfe, Lawrence


Barron, Kevin
Cunningham, Dr John


Battle, John
Dalyell, Tam


Beckett, Margaret
Darling, Alistair


Beith, A. J.
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bell, Stuart
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bellotti, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dewar, Donald


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dixon, Don


Benton, Joseph
Doran, Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Duffy, Sir A. E. P.


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Blair, Tony
Eadie, Alexander


Blunkett, David
Edwards, Huw


Boyes, Roland
Enright, Derek


Bradley, Keith
Evans, John (St Helens N)



Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Fatchett, Derek


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Faulds, Andrew


Caborn, Richard
Fearn, Ronald


Callaghan, Jim
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Canavan, Dennis
Fisher, Mark


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Flannery, Martin


Carr, Michael
FIynn, Paul


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Foster, Derek





Foulkes, George
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fraser, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fyfe, Maria
Mullin, Chris


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Murphy, Paul


George, Bruce
Nellist, Dave


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Godman, Dr Norman A.
O'Brien, William


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Hara, Edward


Gould, Bryan
Parry, Robert


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Patchett, Terry


Grocott, Bruce
Pendry, Tom


Hain, Peter
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hardy, Peter
Prescott, John


Haynes, Frank
Primarolo, Dawn


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Quin, Ms Joyce


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Radice, Giles


Henderson, Doug
Randall, Stuart


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Redmond, Martin


Home Robertson, John
Reid, Dr John


Hood, Jimmy
Robertson, George


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Rogers, Allan


Howells, Geraint
Rooney, Terence


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Rowlands, Ted


Hoyle, Doug
Ruddock, Joan


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Short, Clare


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kennedy, Charles
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Kilfoyle, Peter

Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Kirkwood, Archy
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Snape, Peter


Lambie, David
Soley, Clive


Lamond, James
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Leadbitter, Ted
Steinberg, Gerry


Lewis, Terry
Stephen, Nicol


Litherland, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Straw, Jack


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Loyden, Eddie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McAllion, John
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


McAvoy, Thomas
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McCartney, Ian
Turner, Dennis


Macdonald, Calum A.
Vaz, Keith


McFall, John
Wallace, James


McLeish, Henry
Walley, Joan


McMaster, Gordon
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Madden, Max
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Marek, Dr John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wilson, Brian


Martlew, Eric
Winnick, David


Maxton, John
Worthington, Tony


Meacher, Michael
Wray, Jimmy


Meale, Alan



Michael, Alun
Tellers for the Ayes:


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Mr. Eric Illsey and


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Mr. Allen McKay.


Morley, Elliot



NOES


Adley, Robert
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Aitken, Jonathan
Bellingham, Henry


Alexander, Richard
Bendall, Vivian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Amess, David
Benyon, W.


Amos, Alan
Bevan, David Gilroy


Arbuthnot, James
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Body, Sir Richard


Atkinson, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Baldry, Tony
Boswell, Tim


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Bottomley, Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia






Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hayward, Robert


Bowis, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brazier, Julian
Hill, James


Bright, Graham
Hind, Kenneth


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Buck, Sir Antony
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Budgen, Nicholas
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Burns, Simon
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Butcher, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunter, Andrew


Carttiss, Michael
Irvine, Michael


Cartwright, John
Irving, Sir Charles


Cash, William
Jack, Michael


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Jackson, Robert


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jessel, Toby


Chapman, Sydney
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Chope, Christopher
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Churchill, Mr
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Key, Robert


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Kilfedder, James


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Cormack, Patrick
Kirkhope, Timothy


Couchman, James
Knapman, Roger


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Day, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Devlin, Tim
Knox, David


Dicks, Terry
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dorrell, Stephen
Latham, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawrence, Ivan


Dover, Den
Lee, John (Pendle)


Dunn, Bob
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Eggar, Tim
Lightbown, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lillley, Rt Hon Peter


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fallon, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Farr, Sir John
Lord, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Fishburn, John Dudley
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fookes, Dame Janet
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forman, Nigel
Mans, Keith


Forth, Eric
Maples, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Marland, Paul


Fox, Sir Marcus
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Freeman, Roger
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


French, Douglas
Maude, Hon Francis


Fry, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin


Gale, Roger
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gardiner, Sir George
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gill, Christopher
Mitchell, Sir David


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Moate, Roger


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Monro, Sir Hector


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Moore, Rt Hon John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Morrison, Sir Charles


Gorst, John
Moss, Malcolm


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mudd, David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Nelson, Anthony


Gregory, Conal
Neubert, Sir Michael


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Nicholls, Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Grist, Ian
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hague, William
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Page, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Paice, James


Hannam, Sir John
Patnick, Irvine


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Harris, David
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hawkins, Christopher
Pawsey, James


Hayes, Jerry
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth





Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Summerson, Hugo


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Portillo, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Price, Sir David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)


Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Riddick, Graham
Thorne, Neil


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thornton, Malcolm


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Thurnham, Peter


Roe, Mrs Marion
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Tracey, Richard


Rost, Peter

Tredinnick, David


Rowe, Andrew
Trippier, David


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Trotter, Neville


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sackville, Hon Tom
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Walden, George


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Waller, Gary


Shelton, Sir William
Walters, Sir Dennis


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shersby, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Watts, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wells, Bowen


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wheeler, Sir John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Whitney, Ray


Speller, Tony
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wiggin, Jerry


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wilkinson, John


Squire, Robin
Wilshire, David


Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wolfson, Mark


Steen, Anthony
Wood, Timothy


Stern, Michael
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Stevens, Lewis
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)



Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Tellers for the Noes


Stokes, Sir John
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Sumberg, David
Mr. David Davies.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 4

ESTABLISHMENT OF STAFF COMMISSION

'.—

(1) The Secretary of State, after consulting such bodies representative of existing local authorities or of staff employed by such local authorities as appear to him to be concerned, shall by order establish one or more staff commissions and such a commission may be established either for the whole or any part of England.
(2) An order made under this section may contain provisions as to the transfer of any person who is, on such date as may be specified in relation to him in the order, the holder of any office or employment and who is affected by any provision of, or of any instrument made under, this Act and shall contain provision for the protection of the interests of such persons.'.—[Mr. Blunkett]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Blunkett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 18— Establishment of Staff Commission (No. 2)—

'.—(1) The Secretary of State, after consulting such bodies representative of existing local authorities or of staff employed by such local authorities as appear to him to be


concerned, shall by order establish one or more staff commissions and such a commission may be established either for the whole or any part of England.
(2) Such a commission shall have the purpose of—

(a) considering and keeping under review the arrangements for the recruitment of staff by local authorities affected by orders under this Part and for the transfer, in consequence of the provisions of any such order, of staff employed by such authorities;
(b) considering such staffing problems arising in consequence of such an order, and such other matters relating to staff employed by any such authority, as may be referred to the staff commission by the Secretary of State; and
(c) advising the Secretary of State on the steps necessary to safeguard the interests of such staff.

(3) An order made under this section may contain provisions as to the transfer of any person who is, on such date as may be specified in relation to him in the order, the holder of any office or employment and who is affected by any provision of, or of any instrument made under, this Act and shall contain provision for the protection of the interests of such persons.'

Amendment No. 6, in page 21, line 14, leave out clause 23.

Mr. Blunkett: The greatest asset that any service has is the people who work for it. The idea that to promote the interests of the public service and to be concerned about the quality of the staff who work in it is somehow to be committed to the interests of the provider as against those of the consumer or user is a great mistake.
In the years ahead, we need to restore a commitment to, and faith in, the whole concept of public service. We need people who are willing to serve their local communities and who can give more than simply what is expected of them in exchange for the remuneration that they receive in their wage packet. We need to stimulate and motivate people and make them want to do a good job and provide something for the community, not simply because they are paid but out of a desire to serve.
That is why I make no apology for saying that, if we are to reorganise local government and to ensure a satisfactory transfer of employees from one authority to another, we must establish a mandatory staff commission. The retention of high-quality staff is a prerequisite of high-quality services. If we are to put the interests of users and consumers of the services at the top of the agenda, those who deliver those services and provide for those users and consumers must be considered a key priority.
The establishment of a staff commission is not only about the interests of staff but about the interests of those who use the services. The Government have made a great mistake in believing that, if one privatises essential local services, one can retain the commitment to the job of staff who related to those whom they served and to the communities and neighbourhoods in which they worked. Much has been lost in the scrabble to disentangle local services and their providers from local authorities and the community. The most obvious examples are the village and neighbourhood schools, where the contractorisation of services has meant that, instead of the staff being part of a team—part of an integrated whole—they are merely the servants of a company or organisation that has placed them there to do a job. Another example is the cleaning of buildings. Anyone who has experienced the transition from an in-house service, made up of people who were part

of the organisation and who felt some affinity with it, to a service provided by a private company will have discovered to his cost and peril that the staff are no longer committed to the job and the provision of the service but merely to finishing the task as fast as possible and getting off their shift and out of the building.
We live in a society in which motivation depends on bonuses and pay, rather than on commitment to doing a good job on behalf of the people. The Opposition will seek to restore that commitment to public service and the morale and motivation that existed 20 or 30 years ago in local government when the approach was completely different. People took pride in what they were doing. They cared enough to stay on after their normal hours of work were over. They gave a damn about the people with whom they were dealing and would put themselves out in the evenings and weekends to help them. They had an affinity with the neighbourhood and knew what people's needs were.
That approach has been lost, but we believe that the establishment of a staff commission would be one small step towards restoring it. It would reflect the need to ensure that the interests of the community were served by an orderly and sensible transfer of employees from one authority to another. We could thus ensure a degree of stability so that people stayed in their employment long enough to be able to be transferred to the successor authority and did not simply leave the sinking ship while the going was good, taking whatever opportunity arose for them—perhaps in another part of the country.
High-quality staff at every level—from chief officers and senior white-collar staff to those at the sharp end in the delivery of public services—would feel that it was worth their while staying on, keeping the quality of service going in the existing authorities and being willing to transfer in an orderly fashion to the new authority.
The mistake that may have been made back in the early 1970s when the mandatory staff commission was established was that the need to provide quality to the consumer was not set alongside the needs of the provider. The commission was rightly given the clear instruction that it was to look after the interests of those who worked in the service, and the 1974 transfer and compensation package was very fair to staff. That fairness to the staff needed merely to be seen to be complemented by fairness to customers and users.
Taken together, the two priorities make sense; one cannot have one without the other. Users cannot be served without decent, highly qualified and motivated staff and staff cannot be provided with employment or with a task worth undertaking unless quality is a key word on their agenda. Perhaps we have not engaged local government staff enough in debate and discussion about their role in the quality development of services. We have regarded them as pawns who can either be transferred to new employers or replaced with people who have been taken on at a lower cost and for lower wages. Perhaps it is time to ensure that the staff are engaged in the debate and feel that their task and future are bound up with the service that they provide.
It is in that spirit that we wish to promote the concept of a mandatory staff commission, which will not just deal on a piecemeal basis with individual localities but will be seen as essential to the arrangements for the country as a whole. Staff could then feel a continuity of service in the neighbourhood in which they worked and in the work that


they were undertaking, but would also know that there was a wider context in which their service could be valued and that their transfer to another authority could be acquired if that were more appropriate.
It is in acceptance of their role and the ability to enable people to continue doing the job and to be able to transfer to that job within the new framework that we believe that the smooth handover—the transition—can best be maintained by ensuring that everyone is committed to it. If they are not, people will he afraid of the change. Change in this country has always been seen as a threat. In one sense, that has led to a conservatism that would otherwise not be present. That can be avoided in the way that I have described, and with the staff commission working alongside the reorganisation to be undertaken by the local government commission.
That is why we are committed to the notion of the staff commission. We are committed to undertaking it in a more positive way than in the early 1970s. However, there was a commitment by all sides to making it work, and there was success in managing the operation, the compensation regulations and the fair treatment of staff.
7.30 pm
Not all staff will be required to remain in the service. Their severance is important to them and, in terms of good industrial relations, it is important to the wider community. We want the matter to be handled smoothly. In that case, we need it to be done without a backlash or a negative reaction and without the danger of a dispute arising, which would dislocate the new authorities before they started and, of course, would undermine the continuance of the quality of service.
We know that past Ministers have agreed with that—from Sir Keith Joseph, as he was at the time of the reorganisation of local government in London, and his successors under the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) in the early 1970s. They understood then and we should understand today the importance of ensuring that the regulations are enforced, that people's fears are put aside and that people can be seen to work together to ensure that the new changes are not a threat to individuals working in a service, but are a promise of better things to come for those who receive the service.
For those reasons, we have moved new clause 4 and are promoting the idea of a smooth and sensible transfer from one set of authorities, from one set of employees to new circumstances, and protecting staff, pensions and the things that matter to the local community, and ensuring that that can be done in a way that would make sense to anyone outside who was asked what he would do if he were in charge of the process.

Mr. David Bellotti: I hope that the Government will be persuaded to accept the new clause because the House should send a message of support, concern and understanding to all the people who serve our local authorities. That message will be crucial, because those people will have to face a tremendous amount of change. It is important at this stage that we say to them that we have not only valued the contribution that they have made in the past but that we expect the easiest possible transition to whatever lies ahead and that if the local government commission does its work properly,

whatever the change and whatever the future is, we value their work now and we will value it in future. Nothing can quantify in monetary terms that message of support.
We have had a decade in which the Government have been sending different messages to those who work in our local authorities, and we have an opportunity tonight of sending a message of support to them.
I shall demonstrate why that message is so important. This morning, I was speaking at a full meeting of East Sussex county council, when the information was given that the county council, in trying to position itself in advance of the local government commission going to Sussex, has taken an extraordinary decision. It will probably conclude at the end of that debate that the agency agreements with four districts within East Sussex for highway matters should be abandoned and that it should take back into the centre of the county council what has run very successfully since 1974—responsibility for employing all staff and undertaking all agency agreements. In other words, it will be a centralisation of the county.
It is obvious why the council is doing that. It hopes that one of the strong cases for devolution to districts will be that they were already successfully undertaking highway matters. One can see the tactic involved. Unfortunately, the pawns are the people who are doing such good work in maintaining our roads and pavements in East Sussex through agency agreements.
I do not know whether the Minister could even intervene. If local authorities throughout the country are to change the supervision of the staff in such programmes in advance of the local government commission being set up, perhaps the Minister should consider whether he has the power to stop local authorities changing their existing arrangements in advance of the commission's work. It seems high-handed of East Sussex county council that it should do so. Having had the matter drawn to his attention, the Minister will want to look at it carefully indeed.
I raise that issue because it is linked with the staff commission. If we have a staff commission and send a message of support to the staff in our local authorities, at least it would be a message of encouragement, whereas the county council's action is a message of complete disruption to the lives and work of people in highways departments.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) asked me to convey Tweeddale district council's concern that the proposals will lead to not only a reduction in the influence of local authorities but a disruption of staff. That council—my right hon. Friend says that he concurs with it—condemns the Government's continued interference in the affairs of local authorities and their continual and unjustified assertion that local authorities are inefficient. Those are commonly held views. They are held not only by Tweeddale county council and my right hon. Friend, but by many people in England, Wales and Scotland. The Government must do something to change that perception.
I shall give one or two more examples of why a statement in favour of a staff commission would send the right messages. The wrong messages are going out at the moment, not just from central Government but from local government. Again, in my own county council, we are aware that the Association of County Councils has already


spent £0.5 million on lobbying about the Bill. The Association of District Councils has spent a considerable sum, and the staff are observing what is going on. They want the Government to give some reassurances.
My own county council has spent £30,000 on redesigning its logo. The difference between the old and the new logos is the addition of the two words "county council". Local people who work for the county council, trying to deliver a cost-effective service, are saving money left, right and centre and are very concerned when they see their employer wasting £30,000 on a new logo just to add the words "county council". The county council formed a consortium with five other Conservative county councils in the south-east to make representations to the Government.
Those things are happening all the time. We must say to the thousands of loyal, hardworking local government staff who have been with us for years that that nonsense will stop and that the Minister will give a reassurance that their jobs will not go as a result of the profligate lobbying which is going on nationally and by some local authorities.
For those reasons, I warmly commend for serious consideration the idea that the staff commission should be supported.

Mr. Allen McKay: I support the new clause and I hope that the Government will also do so. It is common sense to include a staff commission when considering the reorganisation of local government. I went through several reorganisations, both at the receiving and reorganising ends, while working for the National Coal Board and I appreciate the feelings of the people affected. Not only their jobs but their livelihood and that of their families are affected. People may also be worried about their pensions. Some people may have to retire early and may be worried about the pension that they are likely to receive. Those are just some of the points that a staff commission would take on board.
In Committee I argued for some considerable time that architect services, for example, should not go out to tender. Architects are a classic example of people who work in local government not because of the money but because, first, they like the job that they do; secondly, they believe that the service that they provide is a public service; thirdly, they get a great deal of satisfaction from their job. Such people are looking around at present because they know full well that they could obtain a much better salary by going private. Many private firms are eager to pick up local government architects because of their expertise. A staff commission would help to allay the fears of people such as architects and stop them from moving prematurely, and perhaps unnecessarily, because they would at least have some assurance that all their problems would be taken care of during the reorganisation.
A staff commission is also needed because the local government commission will not just examine local government structure for a few weeks and then give up. Its examination of local government will be an on-going process. Indeed, when the Minister was asked to give an end date for the reorganisation, he said that no end date could be envisaged. I think that that is wise. We do not yet know what will be the terms of reference of the commission. If we do not know what it is to do or what it

will examine, there can be no end date. The sheer length of time the commission will deliberate on local government is even more reason to create a staff commission.
Another reason for a staff commission should endear itself to the Government. The 1972 reorganisation of local government was a costly business. No one could believe the amount of money that was spent on officers' salaries in that reorganisation. The cost of local government increased tremendously. It took a long time to find the right balance. All of a sudden, chief officers in local authorities found themselves on the second or third tier of larger authorities. They were happy because their salaries increased to four or five times more than what they received on the old urban authorities. The reorganisation was costly because it was based on the chief officers' salaries. Salaries were enhanced because the area for which the authority was responsible was enlarged and all salary levels increased accordingly. The staff commission could also deal with salaries. It is a question of protecting ratepayers' money.
Local government and therefore local government officials have been under pressure since 1979. There has been a continual battle between central and local government on many aspects. Central Government have squeezed local authority finances and have sought to streamline local authorities. All sorts of pressures have been brought to bear on local government officers. How local government finance officers have stood, and still stand, the problems which the poll tax brought and which the new council tax is bringing, I do not know. Their loyalty to their local authorities has been stretched beyond believable limits. Yet they have coped.
There is great expertise in the finance divisions of local authorities. Finance officers could move out to private enterprise easily and earn lucrative salaries. If those people moved out, the difficulties for local government would be severe. They are the people who spearheaded the financial changes that have taken place recently in local government.
In Committee I also spoke about housing in my area. I cannot comprehend some of the views on housing management expressed both in Committee and in the House today. Why it is not possible for a local authority to manage 60,000 houses, I do not know. No one tells ICI that it is too big to manage. No one tells international firms that they are too big to manage. They are managed. It is effective management that counts.
In my area, all our housing management is devolved to the bottom. Only policy is formulated in the town hall. Once policy is formulated, the tiers below are expected to carry out that policy. Only in overstaffed areas of housing management are town hall officials needed. But people in all the tiers of that management structure will wonder what is to happen to the jobs that they had just settled into.
7.45 pm
If we send out from the House the message that we acknowledge the work that local government staff do and the strains that they are under, that we recognise what will happen in the reorganisation of local government and that some of the fears of staff could be put at rest by creating a staff commission to examine the problems that are bound to arise in the reorganisation, we could keep the loyalty of staff to local government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said, it seems inconceivable that people of the calibre of local


government officials have stood the pressures for so long for the salaries that they receive when they could obtain much more outside. They have done it because they like local government, but central Government are stretching local government credibility too far and some officers are beginning to wince under the strain.
Some local government officers have left for other areas or other jobs simply because they could see no future in their existing jobs. I do not agree with them. I believe that there is a great future in local government. But if the reorganisation goes wrong, we shall have failed local government staff again, as we failed them in 1972.
The Minister should accept that while the local government commission goes ahead with the reorganisation, a staff commission should be working alongside. The staff commission should be akin to the local government commission. Through those two commissions we could bring local government reorganisation to a successful conclusion.
Neither in Committee nor in the House today did anyone say, "We must get it right this time—we have been too wrong too many times before, and it has been costly in money and staff, and costly in local government work". We now have the chance to get it right. A staff commission will help us to get it right, and that is why we need one.

Mr. McCartney: Not for the first time in the past decade or so, the question of the career structure of local government staff has come before the House. In 1972 the reorganisation of local government caused a major upheaval and there was a redistribution of staff in local authorities. When I talk about staff, I do not mean only chief executives. I am talking about a range of people from the highest to the lowest paid. There is no local authority area in Britain where local government staff do not make a major contribution to the local economy. Therefore, changes in the distribution and size of local authority staff has a direct consequence on local economies as well as on the size of the local authority itself.
The reorganisation is not merely an academic exercise of redistributing jobs in local government from one tier to another or between tiers of local government. In 1972 and 1973 the Government made a commitment to redistribute and protect jobs in the transfer from urban and rural district councils to the new metropolitan county and borough councils and the non-metropolitan county and district councils. There was a mainly smooth transition.
In 1985 we had a reorganisation of metropolitan areas. County councils such as Greater Manchester, Merseyside and West Midlands were abolished. A major disruption took place. In that reorganisation services at county level were completely removed. Local authorities were left with the job of running previously county services. It was up to them to make decisions about the staff that were to be transferred. Luckily, in the mid-1980s local authorities still had the financial and resource base to absorb much, if not all, of the redistribution of staff that had to take place when the metropolitan counties and associated organisations were abolished. That is not the case with this reorganisation. In the past six years there has been a major disruption in the levels of service provided by local authorities and the resources provided to finance them.
Local authority workers not only fear that their jobs will be redistributed out of existence but that, at the end of that redistribution, their jobs could be subject to compulsory competitive tendering, which is extended in

the Bill. That adds to the worries and fears of thousands of local government workers for their future in local government. Will their jobs remain in local government in the sense that there will be an orderly transfer and protection of salary levels and pension rights? Will the number of years that they have worked for the authority be considered in connection with holiday and other entitlements? On transfer, will they lose entitlements because they are not transferred to the new authority? Having been transferred, will workers find themselves competing for their own jobs because of the introduction of compulsive competitive tendering'?
We have already witnessed the consequences of compulsory competitive tendering for local government workers, and as a result many workers fear that their jobs will be redistributed under the proposed reorganisation.
The Government have refused to accept the concept of the transfer of undertakings. Local government workers whose jobs were transferred to the private sector as a result of the Local Government Finance Act 1988—whose provisions will be extended by this Act—have no right to protection for the hours that they work, for hourly pay rates, time off and holidays. In Committee, we heard many examples of what happens when there is no protection when employment is transferred from a local authority to a new employer—weeks have been cut from annual holidays and there have been cuts of up to 50 per cent. in hourly rates of pay and cuts in pension entitlement. In many instances, workers have been transferred out of the local authority pension scheme into a new scheme, with no rights. While they work for the new employer they will have pension rights only if they can pay for a private pension plan. In reality, the right to purchase a private plan does not exist for many low-paid workers.
Compulsory competitive tendering has dragged down local authority workers' conditions of employment and has denied them rights that they previously enjoyed when they worked for the authority.
Given that that is the Government's history, what guarantee do we have that they will not use this redistribution to attempt to undermine the rights of masses of workers in local government? Members of Parliament who have worked for local authorities, as I did for many years, believe that that is precisely what will happen. The Government will use the local government review as a massive shake-up of the numbers of people employed in local authorities, of how much they are paid, and of their conditions of service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) is right to say that the proposed staff commissions are important in trying to improve the morale of local authority workers, which is at its lowest, and to reassure them. However, in reality, the Government will not accept the establishment of staff commissions. In the long term, only the return of a Labour Government will help local government workers to maintain their levels of pay and conditions. That is the bottom line.
Given that the Government want the House to approve this legislation, it is important for them to set out precisely their intentions for the transfer of jobs between county councils and unitary authorities, or from former county borough areas to new unitary authorities in the non-metropolitan areas. Will the Government give clear guidelines on the protection of salaries, conditions of employment and pensions'?
In Committee, I twice mentioned pensions and Government policy on them. The response from the Minister was unsympathetic, to say the least. If his pension rights were involved, he would not be so unsympathetic. Our pensions are protected. The Government have failed lamentably to protect the pension rights of tens of thousands of local authority workers. This review will affect not merely tens of thousands but hundreds of thousands of local government workers. Will the Minister give a clear sign that the huge reserves in local authority pension schemes will be maintained? Will employees have an absolute right in law to remain in schemes, or, if they have to be wound down because the local authority unit of organisation is removed, will those rights be transferred into a new scheme so that irrespective of whom the employee works for after the decision to amalgamate or to eradicate their previous employer, at vesting day when the new authority takes over, their pension rights will be maintained? That would mean that people who had worked for a local authority for 25 years and had paid into the pension scheme would be able to take their contributions with them to the new employer. It is vital that we are given a clear understanding that that will be the case.
What will be the Government's policy on the protection of salaries? I do not argue that people should maintain the same salaries throughout their working lives. I accept that salaries may go up or down. I am at a period in my career when my salary is increasing considerably. I do not suggest that local government workers should be absolutely cushioned, but it would be wholly wrong both in principle and in practice if, by virtue of a change in local government boundaries and therefore a change of employer, a worker found himself substantially worse off overnight, having been transferred to a job with a lower salary. That means a salary reduction, not merely for the worker but for the family unit, with all the consequences. Will there be rules and regulations to protect salaries? They should be protected at least for a few years so that there is no cut-off point and local authority workers are not forced to transfer into new employment and to accept a major cut in their salary.
I hope that the Minister can give us some satisfactory replies. If he can, some local government workers may feel more reassured than they do at present.

Mr. Key: I must start by saying something which I think will be deeply unpopular on the Opposition Benches. I have great faith in local government. I have a high respect for local government staff, whether senior officers or people who have worked for years and often decades in lowly positions to make local authority services work. Far from local authorities suffering the death of a thousand cuts, which I suspect Opposition Members would like us to believe in, local government has a bright future. I envisage local government having an enhanced status, the like of which has not been seen this side of 1945. As a result of measures that have been difficult and unpopular in local government—including the operation of compulsory competitive tendering, changing local authorities to an enabling role, and crucial areas of change such as the city challenge—in the future there will be more responsibility for officers and staff at all levels. They will have more

influence over the communities we all seek to serve and there will be more status for people who work in local authorities. That is how I see the future.

Mr. O'Brien: While the Minister is completing his vision of the future for people employed in local government, will he assure us that he will not countenance the discrimination that currently takes place? Officers in local government suffer political discrimination, but officers who work for private-sector organisations or consultancies, which will take over the duties and management of local authority services, will not be politically disfranchised. If the Minister believes in local government, will he remove such discrimination?

Mr. Key: It is always a pleasure to spar with the hon. Gentleman and I give him the same answer that I gave in Committee. We are talking about two entirely different types of provision of services. There can be no question of private-sector contractors being subject to the same political constraints. As I tried to demonstrate in Committee—and the Committee agreed with me—local government officers give policy advice to elected politicians; therefore, they operate under a completely different set of circumstances.

Mr. McCartney: rose—

Mr. Key: I do not wish to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but if I do not I know that the debate will begin to break up.

8 pm

Mr. McCartney: The Minister is so kind. Will the Minister tell us about the position of a private solicitor who is employed when compulsory competitive tendering occurs and is asked to give policy advice on legal matters? He would be allowed to stand in an election for whatever party he wished. However, a local government solicitor who works for the same or another authority, but does not give such advice, is prevented from even putting up a poster at election time.

Mr. Key: The private-sector solicitor would be operating under a specific contract, for a specific job and for a specific period. The local government officer, who has qualified to be a solicitor, is in a completely different position.
I wish to reply to the points raised by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I accept that, perhaps, one of the things that has beeen lacking in local government has been the opportunity to pursue a proper career. I have seen that for myself. In the first weeks of becoming a Minister in the Department of the Environment when I was responsible for housing, I was shocked to discover the lack of training available for people in housing management. The Government are now dealing with that problem. Motivation is a crucial factor. If staff do not have motivation because they do not see a career ahead, they will inevitably and understandably not give of their best.
In order to dispel another myth, it is important to recognise that the number of staff employed by local authorities is almost the same now as it was 10 years ago. The number of local authority personnel has not massively withered away. The figures for local authorities bear that out. Pensions and salaries will be dealt with by clause 26 (5)(b).
The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) made a typically telling comment. He is right that local government officers and their families form part of the community. Their children go to school with our children, and so on. I recognise that they are part of the fabric of the community which they serve, in the same way that the hon. Gentleman and I are members of the community that we represent.
It is true that local government officials have experienced considerable pressure in the past decade. I recognise that, but that is a good thing. As a result of what has happened over the past 10 years, we have a vigorous local government service that has a quite different standing in the eyes of the people who pay for and receive the services that it provides. I pay tribute to local government staff who have responded robustly and with vitality over the past 10 years. That is why I was so robust in my opening remarks. I care about local government staff and acknowledge their fears, but local government has a great future.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) said that we should send out a message of support, concern and understanding. I unreservedly join him in that. Over the years we have not heard Conservative Ministers castigating local authority employees. We may have been rude about local councillors because they direct and make the policy that their officers carry out. I note what the hon. Gentleman said about East Sussex county council and I shall consider that. He said that the work force tend to be the pawns and I recognise his concern. I listened to the comments that the hon. Gentleman relayed to us from the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) on the problems of Tweeddale district council. He said that his right hon. Friend was worried about interference in local government. I ask him to convey to his right hon. Friend my belief in the future of local government and how 1 think that it has a strong future with a high status in our community.
I believe that the relationship between central Government officials and local government officers is perhaps better than we have any right to deserve. They work closely together. We at the Department of the Environment are anxious that such co-operation should be improved still further. We have a programme of secondment between the Department and local authorities which is valuable, and chief officers of local authorities meet permanent secretaries and other senior officials on a regular basis.
In common with the hon. Member for Eastbourne, I am concerned about what he described as profligate lobbying about the future of local government. I have had something to say about that in the past. I do not believe that glossy publications and brochures should be produced by different councils. They have a right, of course, to consult their local people and to explain what is going on, but I suspect that the local government commission will not be swayed by glossy brochures and flashy publicity.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that the greatest asset a service has is the people who work for it and I say "Hear, hear" to that.

Mr. Blunkett: Hear, hear.

Mr. Key: We are in stereo.
We mean to restore commitment to and faith in the public services, but our vision is fundamentally different from the hon. Gentleman's provider vision. I believe that there is a desire to serve among local government staff and officers at all levels. The status of local authorities is different from that perceived many years ago when the hon. Gentleman and I were children. Then, there was a somewhat cosy atmosphere in local government that did not necessarily mean that the best standards were always adhered to.
The hon. Member for Brightside also said that a prerequisite of any good service was the retention of high-quality staff. That is true, but my approach is slightly different from that of the hon. Gentleman. I want exchanges to take place between the private and public sectors. I do not want to lock local government officers to their particular jobs. It is entirely healthy that there should be such exchanges. Sometimes people leave local government service to work in the private sector. Sometimes they go back to local government work when they discover that the bright lights of London and the London weighting that went with them were not what they should be. We in central Government have also learnt that lesson, because more of our jobs are being moved from London to the country.
The hon. Member for Brightside also spoke about career development and the importance of in-service management and training, with which I agree. However, we have a long way to go. I believe that local authorities should be examples of the very best management practice. It has always struck me as astonishing that anyone should be prepared to accept that what is good for the best private-sector companies, such as ICI, which has been mentioned today, should not be equally applicable to local government. I want local government to bear fine testimony to best management practice.
We already have a high standard of management in local authorities and that standard is constantly improving. That is one reason why there is such a strong exchange programme between some local authorities and the emerging democracies of eastern Europe. That is why their local government Ministers come here to discuss with us the problems that we face and the programmes for change that we are instituting.
I hope that I can demonstrate that there is no wide gulf between us on the issue of staff commissions—it is a matter of different emphasis. Any such commission would have three duties. First, it would be required to consider the arrangements for the recruitment or transfer of staff by the relevant authorities affected by the orders under part II of the Bill. Secondly, it would have to consider any staffing issue referred to it by the Secretary of State. Thirdly, it would advise the Secretary of State on the steps necessary to safeguard the interests of the staff.
The clause also provides for the Secretary of State to issue directions to any relevant authority affected by an order under that part of the measure about the implementation of any advice given by a staff commission. There is a separate provision, to which I have referred, in clause 26(5)(b) which would allow the Secretary of State to make orders for the transfer of staff, compensation for loss of office, pensions and other staffing matters.
I do not doubt that staff commissions have been important in the past. We shall not hesitate to establish one or more should that prove necessary. But the practice in the past has been for a major reorganisation to be put


into effect on a single day—what has often been referred to as the big bang approach. We have learned from the lessons of 1972, to which the hon. Member for Brightside referred. That single vesting day inevitably caused considerable upheaval, and an important task of the staff commission was to try to lessen the impact on the interests of the staff.
On this occasion it is different. The local government commission will review local government in England on an area-by-area basis. We do not know what the commission's recommendations will be, nor how extensive a reorganisation of local government will eventually result from the review in each area. So where the Secretary of State decides to make orders following recommendations from the commission, the changes will be implemented in stages.
I accept that there will be a significant period of uncertainty for staff. Whereas some people have maintained that the single vesting day led to considerable upheaval and uncertainty, the opposite case is now being made out—that a piecemeal approach would lead to even greater uncertainty. As I said in Committee, I recall well —I was a teacher of economics—what happened in 1972.

Mr. Alan Amos: Hear, hear.

Mr. Key: I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend agreeing with me. I recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) came on teaching practice and took over my sixth form for a happy term. The A-level students benefited enormously from that experience. I was grateful to him at the time for taking a load off my shoulders for a term. Now he is doing the same as he sits on the Bench behind me.
The area-by-area approach that the Government are proposing should reduce the amount of uncertainty that the staff will have to put up with. We believe that the process of review of the whole country will take at least five years. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone said he recognised that it was unlikely that we would seek a definite end date for the process. I believe that it will be at least five years. If there were a big bang approach, we would have to specify that after two, three, five or however many years there would be a single changeover.
The need for a staff commission will depend on the scale of the changes proposed in any one area. In some areas, the changes are likely to be minor, and I believe that it would be unnecessary to set up a staff commission to deal with relatively minor problems which local authorities are perfectly competent to cope with among themselves. But we accept that where there are major structural changes, we may need to establish one or more staff commissions.
I have given an assurance that we will establish a staff commission where necessary. I have explained that we take on board the need to keep in mind issues of pensions, salaries and so on. As proof of my good faith, I can report to the House that I had a good discussion with NALGO last week. The union asked to see me about the matter and I was happy to oblige. I appreciate that it is not affiliated to the Labour party—I shall not fall into the trap of saying otherwise—even though NALGO may be spending a lot of money promoting the interests of my political opponents.
I had a good meeting with a number of NALGO officials, including Alison Mitchell, the deputy national

officer in the local government section, and I asked whether the union would help us by submitting some proposals on how a staff commission should work. It has agreed to do so. We hope that proposals will come out of discussions between the local government associations and local government unions, based on our legislation. I hope we can agree that there is not a wide gulf between us and that we recognise the problems. I hope that I have managed to lay to rest once and for all the unwarranted belief that in some way we do not see anything other than a bright future for local government.

Mr. Blunkett: There is nothing between us, except whether we believe a word of what the Minister has been saying.

Mr. Key: That is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Blunkett: Is it? I remind hon. Members that the Minister said that he had an undying commitment to local government, which he claimed had a brighter future than at any time since 1945. He said that far from detracting from and constraining local government—by capping, regulating or in some cases diverting parts of it to the private sector—the Government were fully in favour of local government. He reminded me of the man who said that he liked little lambs and their fleece, and above all he liked eating them. I thought of the Minister in that light when he spoke about how much he liked local government. He was almost drooling as he said it, as though holding a cleaver in one hand and a microwave in the other.
The truth is that whether there is a piecemeal or comprehensive approach to reorganisation, if there is good staff at any level, we must ensure that they are transferred in a reasonable fashion. But if unitary district authorities are established and the county in that area is abolished, there is a danger that the highest quality staff at the county level in some of the most key services will find themselves excluded. That would be tremendously detrimental to local government. Indeed, the whole issue of transferring politicians will prove a major problem if we wish to ensure quality of service and the highest possible functioning of local government.
For those reasons, we regard the issue as important enough to press to a Division. I look the Minister in the eye as he smiles unwaveringly and assures me that local government has an unending future under his knife.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 247.

Division No. 95]
[8.17 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Allen, Graham
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Alton, David
Benton, Joseph


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bermingham, Gerald


Armstrong, Hilary
Bidwell, Sydney


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Blunkett, David


Ashton, Joe
Boyes, Roland


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Bradley, Keith


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Battle, John
Caborn, Richard


Beckett, Margaret
Callaghan, Jim


Bell, Stuart
Campbell, Menzies (File NE)


Bellotti, David
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)






Canavan, Dennis
McAvoy, Thomas


Carr, Michael
McCartney, Ian


Cartwright, John
Macdonald, Calum A.


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McFall, John


Clelland, David
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cohen, Harry
McLeish, Henry


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McMaster, Gordon


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Madden, Max


Corbett, Robin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cousins, Jim
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cryer, Bob
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Martlew, Eric


Cunningham, Dr John
Maxton, John


Darling, Alistair
Meacher, Michael


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Meale, Alan


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Michael, Alun


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dewar, Donald
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Dixon, Don
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Morgan, Rhodri


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Morley, Elliot


Eadie, Alexander
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Edwards, Huw
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Enright, Derek
Mullin, Chris


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Murphy, Paul


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Nellist, Dave


Fatchett, Derek
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Faulds, Andrew
O'Brien, William


Fearn, Ronald
O'Hara, Edward


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Parry, Robert


Fields, Terry (L 'pool B G 'n)
Patched, Terry


Fisher, Mark
Pendry, Tom


Flannery, Martin
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Flynn, Paul
Prescott, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Primarolo, Dawn


Foster, Derek
Quin, Ms Joyce


Foulkes, George
Randall, Stuart


Fraser, John
Redmond, Martin


Fyfe, Maria
Reid, Dr John


Galbraith, Sam
Robertson, George


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Rogers, Allan


George, Bruce
Rooney, Terence


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Rowlands, Ted


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Sedgemore, Brian


Gould, Bryan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Grocott, Bruce
Short, Clare



Hain, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Hardy, Peter
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Haynes, Frank
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Henderson, Doug
Snape, Peter


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Soley, Clive


Home Robertson, John
Spearing, Nigel


Hood, Jimmy
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Steinberg, Gerry


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Stephen, Nicol


Howells, Geraint
Strang, Gavin


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Straw, Jack


Hoyle, Doug
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Turner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Vaz, Keith


Illsley, Eric
Wallace, James


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Walley, Joan


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Kennedy, Charles
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Kirkwood, Archy
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Lambie, David
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Lamond, James
Wilson, Brian


Leadbitter, Ted
Winnick, David


Lewis, Terry
Worthington, Tony


Litherland, Robert
Wray, Jimmy


Livingstone, Ken



Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Loyden, Eddie
Mr. Jack Thompson.


McAllion, John






NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Fry, Peter


Alexander, Richard
Gale, Roger


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Gardiner, Sir George


Amess, David
Gill, Christopher


Amos, Alan
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Arbuthnot, James
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Aspinwall, Jack
Green way, John (Ryedale)


Atkinson, David
Gregory, Conal


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Baldry, Tony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Batiste, Spencer
Grist, Ian


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hague, William


Bellingham, Henry
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Bendall, Vivian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hannam, Sir John


Benyon, W.
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bevan, David Gilroy
Harris, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hawkins, Christopher


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Body, Sir Richard
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hill, James


Boswell, Tim
Hind, Kenneth


Bottomley, Peter
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourno)


Brazier, Julian
Hunter, Andrew



Bright, Graham
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Irvine, Michael


Browne, John (Winchester)
Jack, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Jackson, Robert


Budgen, Nicholas
Jessel, Toby


Burns, Simon
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Butcher, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Carttiss, Michael
Key, Robert


Cash, William
Kilfedder, James


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Kirkhope, Timothy


Chapman, Sydney
Knapman, Roger


Chope, Christopher
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Knox, David


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Cormack, Patrick
Lawrence, Ivan


Couchman, James
Lee, John (Pendle)



Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Day, Stephen
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Devlin, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dicks, Terry
Lord, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Dover, Den
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Dunn, Bob
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Durant, Sir Anthony
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Dykes, Hugh
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Eggar, Tim
Mans, Keith


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Maples, John


Evennett, David
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fallon, Michael
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Farr, Sir John
Maude, Hon Francis


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Mitchell, Sir David


Fookes, Dame Janet
Moate, Roger


Forman, Nigel
Monro, Sir Hector


Forth, Eric
Moore, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Morrison, Sir Charles


Fox, Sir Marcus
Moss, Malcolm


Freeman, Roger
Mudd, David


French, Douglas
Neale, Sir Gerrard






Nelson, Anthony
Stevens, Lewis


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Norris, Steve
Stokes, Sir John


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Sumberg, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Summerson, Hugo


Page, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Paice, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Patten, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thorne, Neil



Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thornton, Malcolm


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thurnham, Peter


Portillo, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Powell, William (Corby)
Tracey, Richard


Price, Sir David
Tredinnick, David


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Trippier, David


Rathbone, Tim
Trotter, Neville


Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Twinn, Dr Ian


Riddick, Graham
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Walden, George


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Waller, Gary


Rost, Peter
Walters, Sir Dennis


Rowe, Andrew
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Watts, John


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Wells, Bowen


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wheeler, Sir John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Whitney, Ray


Shaw, David (Dover)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wilkinson, John


Shelton, Sir William
Wilshire, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shersby, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wood, Timothy


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Yeo, Tim


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Speller, Tony



Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Tellers for the Noes:


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. David Lightbown and


Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. John M. Taylor.


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 6

PUBLIC INFORMATION

'(1) This section shall have effect for the purposes of securing proper public information about and involvement in the procedure established under Part II of this Act.
(2) Before making any order under section 17 (1) below, the Secretary of State shall by a date not later than two months before the laying of any such order—

(a) publish any relevant recommendation of the Commission;
(b) ensure that persons interested in the review are enabled to make comments on the relevant recommendations; and
(c) publish a statement of his response to the recommendations of the Commission.'.—[Mr. O'Brien.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. O'Brien: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Due to lack of time, we have not moved new clause 1. New clause 6 is a significant and important amendment to clause 17. It is significant that so far in this debate we have discussed only part II of the Bill. The new clause will ensure that a proper public information exercise takes

place and that people interested in the legislation will be allowed information about and involvement in any procedure established under part II of the Bill.
The new clause states:
Before making any order under section 17 (1) below, the Secretary of State shall by a date not later than two months before the laying of any such order—
(a) publish any relevant recommendations of the Commission".
That means that the people who could be affected by the commission's recommendations should be made fully aware of any effects that the recommendations may have.
8.30 pm
If we are to be fully democratic in our approach to the reorganisation of local government, everyone involved must have the right to know about the changes. They are entitled to make comments and recommendations. The Secretary of State should ensure that people interested in the review are able to comment on the recommendations that affect them. The Secretary of State should also publish a statement of his response to the commission's recommendations. There must be a full public relations exercise so that the commission's recommendations are made fully available.
We have outlined in detail, in Committee and to some extent in the House today, how the public could be involved in the commission's recommendations. They could be involved in questions of boundaries, local representation, housing or other services. We therefore believe that those people should have the opportunity to comment on the report. When the Secretary of State considers the representations and publishes his report, that should also be made available to those involved.
That policy should apply not only to local government customers, but to people involved in local government. If we are to be fair and honest with all the people who could be involved, ensuring that information is made available to them is of paramount importance. If there is any reason why the public should not be informed of the commission's work and decisions, and the recommendations of the Secretary of State, the Minister should spell that out to the House. If there is no reason why people should not be advised or have the opportunity to make observations and comments on the response of the Secretary of State, the new clause should be accepted today.
We have tabled the new clause as we consider that it is constructive and will strengthen the Bill. Although we do not agree with many aspects of the Bill, we believe that it should be strengthened in this way. It is against that backcloth that I commend the new clause for consideration by the House, and ask the House to accept it.

Mr. Portillo: I have no particular disagreement with the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) about the desirability of publicity being given to the recommendations made by the local government commission, but I think that the new clause is unnecessary. He should consider clause 15 of the Bill.
Clause 15(1) provides that people who may be interested in the review should be informed of the review's existence. Clause 15(2) provides that steps should be taken to inform people who have an interest of the fact that the commission is conducting a review and the period in which representations may be made. Clause 15(3) states that the


local government commission is bound to take into account any representations, to prepare draft recornmendations and to deposit those
recommendations at the principal office of any principal council appearing to that Commission to be likely to be affected by them; and take into consideration any representations made to that Commission".
Under clause 15(4) the local government commission is obliged to submit to the Secretary of State a report and to
take such steps as it considers sufficient to secure that persons who may be interested in the recommendations are informed of them.
Clause 15(5) contains a requirement that copies of any draft recommendations should be
deposited at the principal office of a principal council
and should be kept available for inspection so that representations in respect of them can be made. Clause 15(7) states that
The Secretary of State may give directions as to the exercise by the Local Government Commission of any functions under
clause 15.
Therefore, the process that we foresee is that the commission will start a review with publicity and consultation to take into account the representations received in drawing up draft recommendations. The public should be consulted on the draft recommendations and account should be taken of those representations when preparing the final recommendations. The final representations should be submitted to the Secretary of State and there should be a further opportunity for the public to comment, this time to the Secretary of State, before he makes an order and brings it to Parliament to give effect to the commission's recommendations.
Therefore, there are ample opportunities for publicity to be given to the commission's work and to the report laid before the Secretary of State, and for representations to be made to the Secretary of State himself.
We intend to issue procedural guidance to organisations that could be consulted at each stage, as well as a general requirement that the commission should make the existence of the review made known widely and should consider all the views that come forward, whether solicited or not.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: When ensuring that people have access to information, will the Minister take into account people with specific difficulties such as the blind and the deaf? Will he oblige local authorities to make sure that people with disabilities have access to the information to which, as citizens, they are entitled?

Mr. Portillo: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman followed our deliberations in Committee carefully, when we discussed an amendment to that effect. I hope that the local government commission will make information available on request in the form described by the hon. Gentleman. I am reluctant to make it an obligation on the local government commission that it should automatically produce material, not least because the various forms in which it may be published are different for people with different disabilities, but I shall ask the local government commission to bear in mind the needs of people who are partially sighted or blind, and people with other disabilities or language difficulties who might otherwise be denied access to the important information.
I must correct myself: our debate in Committee was not on the local government commission, but on a different part of the Bill. However, it was related to the same subject and my response is generally the same. I think that the information should be considered carefully by the local government commission if a request is made. It would not be right to demand of the local government commission that it automatically produces its recommendations in various forms.
The guidance that the Government will issue will also stress the importance of gauging the views of people living in the district, and others who might be affected, and will set out ways of achieving that.
I have no particular disagreement with the view of the hon. Member for Normanton that it is important at every stage to publicise recommendations and that people's views should be taken into account. There will, of course, be bodies that it will be considered right for the commission to consult; it will also be considered right for it to take into account representations made by anyone, regardless of whether that person has been invited to make representations.
Now that I have explained to the hon. Gentleman how clause 15 will operate, and given him an indication of the way in which I intend the procedural guidance to be drafted, I hope that he will see fit to withdraw the motion.

Mr. O'Brien: Clearly, as the Minister says, there is not much to divide us on the issue. However, clause 15 does not deal with the points that are giving rise to concern —hence new clause 6. Under clause 15,
the Local Government Commission shall…take into consideration any representations made to it within the period mentioned in subsection (1)(c) or (2)(c) above…draft recommendations and take such steps as it considers sufficient to secure that persons who may be interested in the recommendations are informed of them and of the period within which recommendations with respect to them may be made".
We are saying that, in the interests of greater public awareness, the recommendations should be published and made public—that they should be deposited in the library or in some other public office.
We ask not only for the commission's recommendations to be made available to those involved and to the wider public, but for the Secretary of State's response to those recommendations to be publicised. Clause 15 makes no such provision. Subsection (7) provides:
The Secretary of State may give directions as to the exercise by the Local Government Commission of any functions under this section; and such directions may require that Commission to have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State as respects matters to be taken into account.
We do not think that that is sufficient assurance that the information will be made available. We want firmer provisions to be included in the Bill, and we are disappointed to learn that the Government cannot accept our proposal.
The issue should be given further consideration. People need to be fully informed of both the commission's decisions and the Secretary of State's response. Although, as I have said, our positions do not differ greatly, I ask the Minister to think carefully about the matter.

Mr. Portillo: Let me make two points. First, I assure the hon. Gentleman that—as with local government boundary decisions now—there will always be a period after the Secretary of State receives a report during which he can


receive public comments that may be submitted to him. The second, obvious point is that the Secretary of State must bring an order to Parliament in regard to structural changes; such orders will he subject to affirmative resolution. The final decision must be taken in Parliament.

Mr. O'Brien: That demonstrates again that there is not a great deal between our thinking and that of the Minister. Both sides accept the importance of the availability of public information about any recommendation from the commission, and about the Secretary of State's response. We merely ask for a public information exercise to be undertaken, both in the House and outside. If the Minister gives further consideration to the principles and the merits of the new clause, I am sure that he could respond more fully.
Although I do not intend to press the motion to a Division, I feel that we should be able to return to the new clause if necessary.
Question put and negatived.

New clause 10

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DELIVERY OF LOCAL SERVICES

'.—(1) The Audit Commission and the Scottish Accounts Commission shall, before issuing directions under this Part, have regard to the need for involving the public in setting and monitoring standards of performance.
(2) The Secretary of State, in making any order under this Part relating to competitive tendering, shall ensure that any directions contained in the Order shall take into account the importance of involving the public in any decision making.'. —[Mr. Bellotli]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bellotti: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause goes to the crux of local service provision. It is really a question of whether we believe that central Government should direct local services, or whether we should now take the opportunity of putting local people—the local electorate—back in charge of those services.
In a sense, this is about whether the people should be the final arbiter in regard to how services are delivered and monitored. In our view, it is not for a commission or for the Secretary of State to dictate to local authorities how their services should be delivered. Of course, both the commission and the Secretary of State will have important roles in providing advice, information and guidelines on good practice, but neither should be the final arbiter.
The commission could have a role in encouraging the development of a new form of local government structure. The Secretary of State can encourage local authorities to go for competitive tendering to obtain quality at an affordable cost. There are advantages, however, in making the people the final arbiter again—in ensuring that the public not only understand the services that are provided, but are consulted fully about their quality.
Many local authorities already test public opinion about the delivery of services in their area. Richmond council, for example, regularly runs surveys to determine whether local people consider the quality of service

important. Recently, Tower Hamlets council conducted a referendum on what the local poll tax level should be. It received a 28 per cent. return of questionnaires, and 45 per cent. of respondents opted for the highest of four offered poll tax levels—which showed, I think, that local people wanted a high-quality service and were prepared to pay for it, but it also showed that they were prepared to enter into a dialogue with the local authority about what they thought of the services provided. I might add that the survey was carried out at mininum cost and has provided the council with useful information.
The choice is this: should there be central guidelines and blueprints, or should local people be left to enjoy services and then comment on them in a way which could lead to improvements? The question whether the Secretary of State should have power to dictate to councils about compulsory competitive tendering is at the core of the current arrangements, but I propose to change that by putting the people back in power. If a local authority and the public are satisfied with the cost and quality of an in-house service, why should the local authority be forced to put that service out to the private sector? If local people are happy and are prepared to pay, central Government should not interfere.
It is also important that, if a tender is undertaken, some customer reaction is obtained. After all, anyone can put a service out to tender at the lowest possible cost, but no one may be pleased with the way in which the service is delivered. According to recent statistics, 28 per cent. of people in the Dorset county council area are unhappy with the services delivered by that council. If more than one in four people who live in the Dorset county council area are unhappy with the services delivered, it says something about those services. Changes ought to be made.
The new clause is about turning the Bill into one which puts local people back in charge. I hope that I have said enough to enable the Minister to tell me why he wants central Government to be put in the driving seat and why he does not intend to allow local people to take decisions which affect their local communities.

Mr. Portillo: I shall try to emulate the commendable brevity of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti). However, the way that he has drafted new clause 10 shows that he has misunderstood the Government's intentions. The first part of it calls upon the Audit Commission and the Scottish Accounts Commission to have regard to the need, before issuing directions, to involve the public in setting and monitoring standards of performance. However, we do not propose that the Audit Commission and the Scottish Accounts Commission shall set standards. What we are asking them to do is to provide objective measurements by which all local authorities can measure the standards that they have set and the service that they are providing to the electors.
It is absolutely central to our proposals that the public will be able to make judgments as to whether they are satisfied with the services that their local authorities are providing for them. Their local authorities will account to them for the standards of service that they are delivering, measured objectively. They will use measurements that are common to all other local authorities. It will be possible, therefore, for people to make comparisons between what the local authority promised and what it has delivered, and also between what one local authority delivers and what another local authority delivers. It will all be measured in


exactly the same terms. The first part of new clause 10 shows that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood our intentions. What we intend puts the public very much in the driving seat. It provides the public with the information, objectively derived, that they need in order to be able to judge their council.
The second part of the proposal in new clause 10 once again shows that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the position. In setting out the specification for anything that is to be the subject of competitive tendering, it is for the local authority to determine for itself the standard at which it wishes its services to be delivered. The local authority should be concerned if subsequently it finds that people are not satisfied with the services delivered. That could only be for one of two reasons: either the specification was wrong, in terms of what local people expected, or the tenderer had under-performed against the specification. If the tenderer has under-performed against the specification, because he is working under contract to the local authority it has redress against the contractor —a redress that it would not normally have against a directly employed labour force operating outside the competitive tendering process.
I have no quarrel with the hon. Gentleman that local people should be able democratically to deliver their judgment about the standard of service that the local authority delivers, whether or not it be a service for which there has been competitive tendering. However, local authorities will have a greater opportunity both to set the specification and to call a contractor to book where the compulsory competitive tendering process has been gone through than would otherwise be the case.

Mr. Bellotti: We debated this subject fairly fully in Committee, when I put forward a range of opportunities by means of which local authorities could consult people and identify customer care. Having listened to the Minister's reply, I do not think that he has moved any further forward since the Committee debate. It is a little late to suggest that a local authority will have redress if a contract is not fulfilled. At the point of redress, local people will have lost the service that they were supposedly going to get. It will be a little late for the local authority to reinstate services that the tenderer failed to deliver.
Before a local authority considers awarding another contract to a private tenderer who was awarded a contract for which there ought to be redress and under which the contract has not been delivered to the standard required, it ought to think carefully about what it is doing The contractor will have clearly demonstrated that he is unable to deliver a service to a certain level of quality. That argument was put forward throughout the whole of the Committee proceedings. It was clear there that cost is the Government's first concern and that quality comes second. In my view, quality is as important as cost. I would not consider awarding anybody a contract if that person had not fulfilled a previous contract to the necessary level of quality.
For those reasons, it appears that the Minister has not moved any further forward since Committee. I believe that the Government are not putting people and quality of service first but are following a cost-led policy. I therefore intend to press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 241.

Division No. 96]
[8.56 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Allen, Graham
Illsley, Eric


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Kennedy, Charles


Ashton, Joe
Kumar, Dr. Ashok


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Lamond, James


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Leadbitter, Ted


Barron, Kevin
Lewis, Terry


Beckett, Margaret
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bellotti, David
Loyden, Eddie


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McAllion, John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
McAvoy, Thomas


Benton, Joseph
McCartney, Ian


Bermingham, Gerald
McLeish, Henry


Bidwell, Sydney
McNamara, Kevin


Blunkett, David
Madden, Max


Boyes, Roland
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Bradley, Keith
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Martlew, Eric



Caborn, Richard
Meacher, Michael


Callaghan, Jim
Meale, Alan


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Morgan, Rhodri


Canavan, Dennis
Morley, Elliot


Carr, Michael
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cartwright, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Mullin, Chris


Cohen, Harry
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
O'Brien, William



Cryer, Bob
O'Hara, Edward


Darling, Alistair
Patchett, Terry


Dixon, Don
Prescott, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Primarolo, Dawn


Eadie, Alexander
Radice, Giles


Edwards, Huw
Randall, Stuart


Fatchett, Derek
Rooney, Terence


Faulds, Andrew
Sedgemore, Brian


Fearn, Ronald
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Flannery, Martin
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Flynn, Paul
Short, Clare


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Foulkes, George
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Fraser, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Fyfe, Maria
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Spearing, Nigel


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Golding, Mrs Llin
Steinberg, Gerry


Gould, Bryan

Stephen, Nicol


Grocott, Bruce
Stott, Roger


Hardy, Peter
Strang, Gavin


Harman, Ms Harriet
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Haynes, Frank
Turner, Dennis


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Vaz, Keith


Home Robertson, John
Walley, Joan


Hood, Jimmy
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Winnick, David


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Wray, Jimmy


Howells, Geraint



Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hoyle, Doug
Mr. Arcby Kirkwood and


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Mr. James Wallace.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)



NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bendall, Vivian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Benyon, W.


Amess, David
Bevan, David Gilroy


Amos, Alan
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arbuthnot, James
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Body, Sir Richard


Atkinson, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Baldry, Tony
Boswell, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Bottomley, Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)


Bellingham, Henry
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)






Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Brazier, Julian
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Bright, Graham
Hunter, Andrew


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Irvine, Michael


Browne, John (Winchester)
Jack, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Jackson, Robert


Burns, Simon
Jessel, Toby


Butcher, John
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine



Carttiss, Michael
Key, Robert


Cash, William
Kilfedder, James


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Chapman, Sydney
Kirkhope, Timothy


Chope, Christopher
Knapman, Roger


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Knox, David


Cormack, Patrick
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Couchman, James
Lawrence, Ivan


Davies, Q. (Stamfd &amp; Spald'g)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Day, Stephen
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Devlin, Tim
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Dicks, Terry
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dover, Den
Lord, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Dykes, Hugh
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Eggar, Tim
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Evennett, David
Mans, Keith


Fallon, Michael
Maples, John


Farr, Sir John
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Maude, Hon Francis


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fishburn, John Dudley
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fookes, Dame Janet
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forman, Nigel
Mitchell, Sir David


Forth, Eric
Moate, Roger


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Monro, Sir Hector


Fox, Sir Marcus
Moore, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Roger
Morrison, Sir Charles


French, Douglas
Moss, Malcolm


Fry, Peter
Mudd, David


Gale, Roger
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Gardiner, Sir George
Nelson, Anthony


Gill, Christopher
Neubert, Sir Michael


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Norris, Steve


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Page, Richard


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Paice, James


Gregory, Conal
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Pawsey, James


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Grist, Ian
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hague, William
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Portillo, Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Price, Sir David


Hannam, Sir John
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Rathbone, Tim


Harris, David
Riddick, Graham


Hawkins, Christopher
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Rost, Peter


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Rowe, Andrew


Hill, James
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hind, Kenneth
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hordern, Sir Peter
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Shaw, David (Dover)



Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Thurnham, Peter


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tracey, Richard


Shelton, Sir William
Tredinnick, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Trippier, David


Shersby, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walden, George


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Speller, Tony
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Watts, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wells, Bowen


Stern, Michael
Wheeler, Sir John


Stevens, Lewis
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wilshire, David


Stokes, Sir John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Sumberg, David
Wolfson, Mark


Summerson, Hugo
Wood, Timothy


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, Sir Teddy



Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Tellers for the Noes:


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Thornton, Malcolm

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 16

CHARTER TRUSTEES

'(1) Where an order under section 17 above makes provision respecting the constitution of an area for which a body of charter trustees acts, a body of charter trustees may resolve that the area for which such charter trustees act shall be constituted a parish and thereupon those district councillors who are such charter trustees shall become the councillors of the parish so constituted and such councillors shall hold office until the next ordinary election of parish councillors pursuant to the 1972 Act.
(2) Upon the constitution of a parish as provided in this section the body corporate of charter trustees shall cease to exist and thereupon all of the powers, functions and traditions of the former body of charter trustees shall vest in and be discharged by the council of the new parish hereby constituted which shall be styled a town council or a city council (as the case may be).'.-/Mr. Anthony Coombs.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may consider the following amendments:
No. 3, in clause 17, page 17, line 19, leave out from 'make' to end of line 21 and insert
'provision for the area for which a body of charter trustees acts to be constituted as a parish under the terms of section (Charter trustees) below'.
No. 4, in page 17, line 21, at end add
'after consulting such representatives of charter trustees as he thinks fit'.

Mr. Coombs: This gives me the opportunity to extol the virtues of charter trustees with which the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), is familiar as the charter trustees of, I think, New Sarum are in his constituency, and his colleagues the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, our hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) also has charter trustees in his constituency. The matter has been brought to my attention


not only by the charter trustees in Kidderminster but by the Association of Charter Trustees and Urban Parish Councils.
Charter trustees were set up under the Local Government Act 1972 and the Charter Trustees Order of 20 February 1974 to allow existing communities to retain their ancient identity and heritage when they had generally been amalgamated into larger boroughs or district councils as a result of reorganisation. Therefore, it is no small wonder that it is ancient towns such as Salisbury, Banbury, Leamington Spa and Kidderminster which retain their charter trustees. There are about 23 such towns, 21 of which are members of the Association of Charter Trustees and Urban Parish Councils.
It must be emphasised that the charter trustees' functions are primarily ceremonial. They act as a focus of civic identity for the people of the district, as in Kidderminster, and they have no specific executive powers. However, as clause 13(5)(a) of the Bill states that in its considerations the local government commission should
reflect the identities and interests of local communities",
I should have thought that that was in line with the purpose of charter trustees in view of their local and historic traditions.
Charter trustees are important in my constituency. Although Wyre Forest district council may be the executive body for local government Acts and for the majority of services for which district councils are responsible, it does not inspire much loyalty among the local population. If one were to ask the vast majority of people in my constituency where Wyre Forest was, they would refer to Kidderminster, Stourport and Bewdley. Given the fact that Stourport and Bewdley have ancient town councils whereas Kidderminster has charter trustees, the people of Kidderminster are understandably jealous about retaining their charter trustees under any future local government reorganisation. Although charter trustees may sound anachronistic and may not be functional as executives, they are important as a focus of loyalty.
The charter trustees are concerned because, although subsections (3) and (4) of clause 14 give wide powers to the Secretary of State and to the local government commission when considering changes in local government, they mention parishes as the most local denominator of local government and do not mention charter trustees. Charter trustees are mentioned only in clause 17(5) where, almost as an afterthought, as the charter trustees believe, they are referred to when the Bill describes the powers that the Secretary of State can exercise on receiving recommendations from the local government commission.
My fear is that because the local government commission does not have a specific remit to consider charter trustees when it considers the structure of local government, their case may go by default. The Secretary of State may act accordingly when he puts the commission's recommendations into operation.
The new clause gives charter trustees the right to change themselves into parish councils with all the responsibilities and opportunities for direct election which that would involve. That would ensure that they would be considered by the local government commission and that their future would, therefore, be assured. I hope that the Minister can

give me some reassurance about the importance that the local government commission will give charter trustees when it considers these important matters.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I detain the House briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) and to refer to a matter that is obviously dear to the hearts of charter trustees and to my own heart. The matter is the subject of amendment No. 1 which we will not have a chance to debate, although I was the first hon. Member to table an amendment to the Bill on Report.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister shares my concern about archives. There can be nothing more important to charter trustees than the proper preservation of their archives and records. One point that has given many of us cause—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The matter does not arise under the new clause. There is a later amendment, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We should not seek to pre-empt that debate now.

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I suggest that what I am saying is entirely relevant to the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than to question my ruling. My ruling is correct. We do not discuss archives when debating new clause 16.

Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre for raising the subject and to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) to whom I will write. I will conclude the matter in that way, which will be more acceptable to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre—

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Wyre Forest.

Mr. Key: I beg the pardon of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs).
I remember well that when I had been in the House for only about a year my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) started on a path that led him to introduce the Charter Trustees Bill, which was enacted in 1985. I was a supporter on that occasion and I believe that my hon. Friend did us all a great service.
My charter trustees go back a long way. Charter trustees are an important part of the heritage of any of our ancient cities.
The mayor of New Sarum, currently Mrs. Gloria Tudhope, is a figure of great importance in the life of the community, as is the mayor of any city, such as Kidderminster or elsewhere. Because we were concerned that mayors and charter trustees might not continue into succeeding centuries, the Charter Trustees Act 1985 was passed. We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes for that.
9.15 pm
I hope that I can put the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest at rest. Under clause 17, where charter trustees were constituted under the Local Government Act 1972 for an area which is altered under this clause, the Secretary of State may make such provision with respect to those trustees as he thinks appropriate.
Amendment No. 4, which would require the Secretary of State to consult representatives of charter trustees before making such provisions, is not necessary. There will be plenty of opportunity for local representatives of charter trustees to make representations to the local government commission when it comes to review their area. We should expect the commission to take account of those views in drawing up its recommendations to the Secretary of State about what should happen in each area.
Amendment No. 3 would remove the Secretary of State's discretion under clause 17 to make provision, as he sees appropriate, for charter trustees and would permit him only to create a parish for these areas under the terms of new clause 16. His discretion under the Bill as drafted is wide enough to cover the creation of parishes for these areas, but we have no reason to believe at this stage that this will necessarily be the solution to suit local circumstances everywhere. There will be plenty of opportunity for local people to make their views known to the commission about this issue. I assure my hon. Friend that I do not wish to see charter trustees disappear from our heritage.
I do not want to start ruling options out at this stage. It is important to leave that discretion in. I fear that my hon. Friend's amendments would have the reverse effect. The principle is there. We want to ensure that charter trustees continue to exist, just as we want to maintain the other functions of local authorities, such as the preservation of archives.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: The Minister has said that he wishes to see charter trustees prosper. Given what we have on the record, I hope that the local government commission, although not obliged to do so under clause 14, will take into consideration representations made by people who are charter trustees or who speak on their behalf.
I am satisfied with what the Minister said. He made my case for me to a certain extent when he called my constituency Wyre rather than Wyre Forest. Although constituencies like Banbury, Leamington Spa and Dover do not have anonymity, Wyre Forest enjoys anonymity not only in the House but also, sadly, in Wyre Forest. I accept the assurance which the Minister has given. As a result, I hope that charter trustees can gain parish status under local government reorganisation and that they will prosper.
It is a pity that we could not discuss the matter of archives because they are integral to the function of charter trustees—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not question my ruling either.

Mr. Coombs: I hope that they will prosper as well.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman seek the leave of the House to withdraw the new clause?

Mr. Coombs: No.
Question put and negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that new clause 19 is not being moved. We now come to new clause 20.

Mr. David Atkinson: I wish to move amendment No. 2, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If new clause 19 is not moved, the hon. Gentleman will have to wait until we reach that amendment, which refers to a later part of the Bill. We cannot discuss it now.

New clause 20

CRITERIA FOR A NEW TENDERING REGIME (No. 2)

'.—

(1) This section has effect for the purposes of specifying criteria which shall be fulfilled before the introduction of any new regime of compulsory competitive tendering under the provisions of this Act.
(2) No order shall be made under section 8 below unless the Secretary of State is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the following criteria will be fulfilled by any such order—

(a) that the tendering procedures introduced under any such order arc consistent with any Directive of the European Community and that no liability will arise in respect of any local authority under any such directive as a result of any difference between the provisions; and
(b) that the quality of local authority services to which any such order applies will be improved as a result of the order, and that any procedure to be established enables local authorities to balance considerations of quality and cost in the most effective and efficient manner.'—[Mr. O'Brien].

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. O'Brien: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Labour Members consider part I of the Bill to be as important as part II, as we showed in Committee when we expressed our deep concern about compulsory competitive tendering and its extension by the Bill. We wish to draw attention now to the fact that there are other factors that the House should bear in mind when considering the extension of CCT.
The new criteria for tendering are worthy of further consideration. The new clause states:
This section has effect for the purpose of specifying criteria which shall be fulfilled before the introduction of any new regime of compulsory competitive tendering under the provisions of this Act.
It is intended to give safeguards to local authorities in connection with the new CCT clauses. It continues:
(2) No order shall be made under section 8 below unless the Secretary of State is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the following criteria will be fulfilled by any such order—

(a) that the tendering procedures introduced under any such order are consistent with any Directive of the European Community and that no liability will arise in respect of any local authority under any such directive as a result of any difference between the provisions; and
(b) that the quality of local authority services to which any such order applies will be improved as a result of the order, and that any procedure to be established enables local authorities to balance considerations of quality and cost in the most effective and efficient manner."
The difference between the proposal that we put forward in Committee and the present proposal is that the new clause provides that the EC directive can influence the way in which tendering arrangements and contracts are adhered to under any new procedures, following its introduction later this year.
Clauses 8 to 11 enable the Secretary of State to extend CCT to other council services and to change the existing rules and regulations for CCT. We are fully aware that local authorities are already compelled to invite tenders for


building and maintenance work and for other blue collar services such as school cleaning, school meals, refuse collection, and so on.
The document, "Competing for Quality", is divided into two parts. The first, "A clearer framework for compulsory competitive tendering", deals with the changes to the tendering rules to tighten up procedures and give the Secretary of State additional policing powers. For example, the Government will be able to take quicker and more effective action against local authorities which appear to the Secretary of State not to be complying with the CCT requirements. That is one reason why the Minister should favourably consider the new clause. If the Secretary of State is to receive new policing powers, we must ensure that there are safeguards for local authorities in the tendering procedure as compared with the EC directive.
Also, in regard to "Competing for Quality", the extension of CCT details the Government's plans for further CCT of police support services, for example, the maintenance of vehicles and home-to-school transport. Those issues were referred to in Committee. We also drew attention to our concern about library services and other managerial services such as engineering, architecture, legal services, and so on.
In Committee, when we outlined our concerns about the extension of CCT in respect of managerial services, we requested information on why the Government were so intent on including those services in the powers that they already possess in the 1980 and 1988 Acts. Why did they want to extend compulsory competitive tendering to other managerial services? The Government implied that no service should be provided by the public sector. That is significant. The Minister of State has made it clear that the Government intend to ensure that no services shall be provided by local authorities and that they will enable other organisations to provide them. Why do the Government dislike local government providing services? Perhaps the Minister will explain.
The Government's policies infer that the management of services provided by and on behalf of local government should be provided by people in business whose only purpose is to make money. New clause 20 safeguards the interests of local government and of those who rely on and work in local government, including legal services and the quality and cost of those services covered by the tendering exercise. In addition to safeguarding the interests of people who rely on and work in local government, we want to ensure that the quality and cost of the provision of services are also safeguarded in any tendering exercise. The new clause states
that the tendering procedures introduced under any such order are consistent with any Directive of the European Community and that no liability will arise in respect of any local authority under any such directive as a result of any difference between the provisions".
Local councils should continue to be able to balance cost and quality considerations in the most effective way when considering tenders, and the quality of local authority services should be improved. That is the basis of the new clause. We want to ensure that cost and quality are balanced in any tendering exercise and that if there is to be compulsory tendering the quality of services is improved.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) outlined what would be the impact of the forthcoming EC directive after it is

introduced in July 1993, with particular reference to stage 1, which covers the fitness of the contractor in any tendering procedure. The Minister concentrated on stage 2 of the directive, conveniently overlooking stage 1. In the United Kingdom the provisions of stage 1 of the EC directive should be given consideration. As that was not considered in Committee, we ask the Minister favourably to consider our request today and to respond to our anxiety about what will develop as a result of stage 1 of the directive.
9.30 pm
There is case law in which it is held that public authorities are under an obligation to give effect to Community law even when it conflicts with national law. I draw attention to the fact that it is on record in case law that EC directives which supersede the national law on tendering procedures apply to public authority contracts, as they do to contracts for local government services.
We have seen how the Government act towards local authorities which try to defend the laws of the land. We saw how the Government acted on shop opening hours. Local authorities were trying to uphold the law of the land. When the matter was raised in the House, the Government did not wish to take part or intervene in the matter. I have tabled the new clause because we can see that there will be difficulties in interpreting the obligations of local authorities under Community law when it conflicts with our national laws. We ask the House to accept new clause 20 to safeguard the interests of local government.
We have the impression, and I am sure that people outside also have the impression, that the Government just do not want to know when the pressure is on to help local government. New clause 20 will safeguard the interests of local government and should be included in the Bill. Local authorities must uphold Community law. We would act wrongly if we did not include a safeguard for local authorities in the Bill.
In Committee we defended the decision taken in another place on the future of compulsory competitive tendering because it was in the best interests of the provision of services under the compulsory tendering procedure which applies at present. We consider that it would be in the best interests of local government to extend that decision to the new provisions in the Bill. The Government negated the change made to the Bill in the other place and reintroduced clause 8 to reinstate the double envelope procedure, which was dealt with at length by the Minister of State. It means that the quality threshold is designated and contracts are thereafter awarded to the lowest bidder. So the Secretary of State will set the quality threshold for services which are to be put out to tender. The contract will then be awarded to the lowest bidder. We are concerned about that level of quality threshold. It is not in the best interests of people who rely on local government services for the quality of those services to be set here in Westminster when they will be provided in local authority areas.
The Lords amendment unified cost and quality considerations. In the best interests of providing services and ensuring that they meet customer demand, there should be a unified cost and quality involvement in tendering. That principle should not merely apply to the new legislation but should also extend to tendering which applies to the blue collar worker sections of present legislation.
Another reason why we are asking for safeguards against European Community legislation is the experience of the past. The London borough of Wandsworth accepted tenders from two companies—Initial and Exclusive—which supposedly competed to win contracts to clean housing estates. When they obtained the contracts they immediately merged with two multinationals, BET and the Hawley Group, which controlled 60 per cent. of all local government refuse collection and street cleaning contracts at the time. Experience shows that there have to be built-in safeguards for local government. Another example is the Merseyside development corporation, which was condemned for poor management. The Committee cited the letting of the Liverpool garden festival site to a company which went into liquidation, leaving debts of £5·5 million. The affair reflected badly on MDC's management and the Department of Environment's monitoring. If that can happen under CCT, there must be some safeguards for local authorities when they are involved in such tendering.
In Committee, we referred to the involvement of compulsory competitive tendering in housing. The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) referred to the need for a cost evaluation of compulsory competitive tendering when considering reorganisation.I suggest to the Minister that Conservative Members have the same concerns that we have about the cost and evaluation of quality in CCT under any tendering system. If it is right for Conservative Members to ask for a cost evaluation in the reorganisation of local government, it is right for us to ask for cost and quality evaluations when awarding contracts under the CCT procedure. The Minister of State referred to "an unbreakable bridge" between Government and people—I think that that was the phrase.
We considered the question of compulsory competitive tendering for housing on more than one occasion in Committee. We asked for the details of the survey that was carried out under the consultation procedures. That survey should have been published in January, but we have not received it. The survey should contain provisions for tenant and co-operative rights under the CCT procedures. We were assured that consideration would be given to tenants and to tenants associations. They are protected by current legislation and I seek the assurance that that protection will continue under CTT procedures. If the existing laws are breached, and the new regulations under the European Community directive do not come into force until after July 1993, I hope that suitable provision will be made for housing. That is important because our communities are short of houses for rent, there is a record number of repossessions and a shortage of housing in rural areas. The CCT and housing management procedures will not solve those problems.
Clause 8 requires the Secretary of State to make orders only if he is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the criteria outlined in the clause have been fulfilled and that the orders contained in the clause have been adhered to. That is important when we consider that as a result of the EC directive no liabilities on local authorities will arise from the tendering procedures. Again, our aim is to safeguard the services and the interests of local authorities.
Against that background, it is clear that the new clause will benefit everyone involved. If the Government have any intention of defending and safeguarding the interests of local government, they should accept the new clause.

Mr. Portillo: I honestly do not feel that we have broken much new ground since we debated these matters in Committee.
The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) asked about the European Community draft directive. As I said in Committee, we are satisfied that there can and will be no conflict between our proposals for the structure of compulsory competitive tendering procedures for professional and technical services and the relevant EC directives. The draft EC directive on public services contracts provides that, subject to the provisions of national law, public authorities can choose between the lowest price tender evaluation procedure or the economically most advantageous tender evaluation procedure.
Under the terms of the EC directive, the double envelope tendering procedure described in our consultation paper is a method of structuring the economically most advantageous tender evaluation procedure. It will allow local authorities in constructing a quality threshold to take account of the type of non-price criteria referred to in the EC directive—quality, technical merit, aesthetic and functional characteristics, technical assistance, service, delivery date, and period of completion.
Subsection (2)(a) of the new clause seeks to import into the Bill considerations which are implicit, the expression of which would suggest a conflict where none can exist. In any case, no Government can act contrary to an EC directive that is in force and nor can any local authority.

Mr. Blunkett: There is a conflict between what is meant by "economically advantageous" and the double envelope involving a tendering list followed by lowest cost. The Treasury put out a directive relating to procurement policy and Department of the Environment circular 16/90 interpreted that by saying:
There are only two alternative criteria: 'lowest price' and `most economically advantageous tender'. The criterion chosen should normally be the latter as, if the lowest price is chosen, contracting authorities will not necessarily obtain value for money as defined in the Government's consolidated guidelines or public purchasing policy.
That shows that there is a clear choice between what is economically advantageous and the lowest tendering price, reflected in the EC regulation and recommended in the Treasury's works directive.

Mr. Portillo: I see no conflict between what the hon. Gentleman said and what I said. I told him that there were two alternatives—the lowest price tender and the economically most advantageous tender. "Lowest price tender" speaks for itself. "Advantageous tender" evaluation takes into account other factors, beyond price, and I referred to some of them—quality, technical merit, aesthetic and functional characteristics and so on.
Evaluating a bid which first passes a quality threshold and then wins on price is a way of structuring the economically most advantageous tender evaluation procedure. An economically most advantageous tender evaluation procedure must contain within it factors both of quality and of price. What is being proposed in the double envelope technique is that the two should be structured. I shall come shortly to why the Opposition were so keen that those two factors should not be separated.

Mr. Blunkett: The Opposition are keen that the two are combined so that price and quality are weighed in


conjunction with each other, not separated out to make them exclusive in the way that the double envelope would do.

Mr. Portillo: The Opposition are keen to fudge compulsory competitive tendering. Labour Members have always been keen to do that. They are afraid that we shall have two sets of objective criteria, first a threshold of quality which is defined and which tenderers will or will not pass, and a second stage which they must pass on price and provide the lowest price.
The Labour party objects to that because it makes the competition absolutely overt and clear, and it cannot fudge that in favour of the direct supply organisation. On the other hand, if Labour can wrap the two together so that it all becomes a matter of subjectivity about quality —so that it can take not the lowest price but possibly the highest—it can be fudged in favour of the DSO.
The purpose of Labour Members in all of this was apparent throughout the speech of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). He talked about safeguarding the interests of local authorities. We are concerned about local government and local authorities, but we are primarily concerned about safeguarding the interests of local people, and providing them with services of the best possible value.
The hon. Member for Normanton said that we were taking new powers to extend compulsory competitive tendering. That is not so. The 1988 Act already provides that we may extend compulsory competitive tendering into new areas. Clause 8 of this Bill is designed to enable us to evaluate separately cost and quality, and that is anathema to Labour, for the reasons I have given.
We did not imply, as the hon. Member for Normanton said, that it was inappropriate for no services to be provided directly by local authorities in the future. Our consultation document makes it clear that, as we move gradually into the area of core services, we acknowledge that local authorities will wish to provide some services directly. That is why we have set out, within that consultation document, a possible technique by which we can judge that part of the core services of a local authority that it would be appropriate for it to continue to provide in house, while ensuring that part of its services is contracted out so that it can he the subject of competition.
The hon. Member for Normanton frequently referred to the need for quality and price to be balanced. That is a euphemism. He simply wishes to confuse the choice so that it will always be possible for local authorities that are so inclined to choose the direct service organisation and, in the process, deny local people the opportunity of the best value for money.

Mr. Blunkett: If that is a Labour party invention, why did the Audit Commission, commenting on "Competing for Quality", say about design services:
A 'second envelope' decision based solely on price could lead to lesser quality buildings"?
In other words, the Audit Commission considers the double envelope scheme to be a flawed way of proceeding on competitive tendering, even if the Government do not accept that.

Mr. Portillo: Throughout the Committee proceedings I said that I was willing to listen to different ways of structuring that. I said that I did not necessarily stand by a double envelope technique as the be all and end all. But


I strongly believe that we need to consider the questions of quality and price separately. We put in the consultation document one way in which that could be done. If there are other ways, I have always said that I would benefit from the advice of professional bodies, and we have been looking forward to receiving that advice and considering it carefully. However, we shall not return to the system that the hon. Gentleman favours, of simply rolling quality and price into one amorphous ball so that any subjective judgment can be made by any local authority and it can award all the contracts to its own direct service organisation.
We are keen on that because we know the game that the Labour party is up to. We know about its dogged opposition to compulsive competitive tendering since it was first introduced. We know that it has fought tooth and nail to ensure that direct service organisations can keep the contracts, whatever the cost to local people. Some Labour politicians over the years have been honest enough to admit what is going on. Keva Coombes, the former leader of Liverpool council, said:
Frankly, we've put the interests of the providers of the service, the work force, above the interests of the tenants".
He also said:
'The Council's problems are not down to resources', rather inefficiency. 'It costs four times more to pick up a piece of litter in Liverpool than it does in other areas'".
He then said:
We are the worst landlord in Liverpool, probably in the country. All the new building has taken place and been run by a central unit and all despite the housing department. It takes genius—voids gone up, rent arrears soared, and the breaking of the law on racial equality".
That is the nightmare of local government under the Labour party where compulsory competitive tendering has not been brought to bear.

Mr. Blunkett: Why should not compulsory competitive tendering apply where the private sector is involved and direct service organisations are excluded? In Committee, just before the closure motion on clause 8 was moved, the Minister said that if no direct service organisation was involved
Compulsory competitive tendering provisions would not then apply: they apply only where a local authority is considering using its direct service organisation"—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 11 February 1992; c. 305.]
Why, if the private sector alone is involved, does compulsory competitive tendering not apply and the proper comparisons of cost do not apply? Why do they apply only if the local authority chooses to involve its own direct service organisation in tendering?

Mr. Portillo: If a local authority has chosen to go out to the private sector for a piece of work, it stands to reason that there is no advantage to that local authority in awarding the work to a particular contractor as none of them works for it. Subject to the views of its auditors, who may review what it does subsequently, the local authority awards the contract where it will obtain the highest quality work for the lowest price. Only where the authority wishes to use its own in-house work force to compete does the compulsory competitive tendering regime apply.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) comes over all innocent as though wondering why that should be. I refer him back to the quotes from Keva Coombes, the former leader of Liverpool council. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the devious steps taken by Labour authorities up and down the


country to fix competition in favour of in-house direct service organisations. That is the answer to his question, and it is a perfectly obvious one.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that, under the present regime, Lancashire county council lost the citizens of Lancashire about £600,000 by giving way to an in-house tender—I believe that it was for school meals? We want to do away with such practices.

Mr. Portillo: I am sorry to hear what my hon. Friend says.
The Bill will not only extend the compulsory competitive tendering regime through the possibility of considering quality and cost separately in relation to new ranges of services, but will enable the Secretary of State to specify a series of practices that he considers to be uncompetitive. Therefore, the practices that have been taking place in a number of local authorities to fix the competition in favour of the direct service organisation can be ruled out in future by order of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We shall be able to specify a series of practices, of which we now have a growing number of examples, which until now have been used in order to distort the competition, not only in favour of the direct service organisation, but against the benefit and interests of the consumer. That is what the debate is all about.
The legislation is about providing services to local people for the best possible value for money, recognising that that money has to come from local taxpayers and that the best value services can be provided through competition. Just this week, we have had another example of the advantages of compulsory competitive tendering. A recent survey on the cleanest cities in Europe gave the lie to the Labour party's denigration of our capital, as London came second in the table.
The part of London surveyed in order to show that it was the second in the league in Europe was not, surprisingly enough, Hackney, Lambeth, Southwark or Haringey, but Westminster—the very heart of our capital, where the services were put out to tender some time ago.

Mr. Bellotti: If the Minister is so convinced that compulsory competitive tendering is finding favour, where is it doing so? It is not finding favour with any of the local authority associations. The Royal Institute of British Architects and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations are both opposed to it. Everyone outside the House is opposed to it. From where does the support come?

Mr. Portillo: I think that the hon. Gentleman must keep his head under a bushel. Local authorities up and down the country are ahead of the Government. The Bill merely brings up the rear. Compulsory competitive tendering will simply bring into line those local authorities which have not taken up voluntary competitive tendering. If the hon. Gentleman has contacts in local authorities, he should know that local authorities throughout Britain are seizing the opportunity of competitive tendering as a good chance to manage their resources more efficiently and to find the best value for money for their local taxpayers. I make no claim that the legislation will influence the best

authorities in the country, which are already far ahead of us and are showing the limits of what can be achieved by putting their services out to competitive tendering.
The new clause constitutes a naked attempt by the Labour party once more to resist the process of competitive tendering; once more to resist the introduction of competition in local services; once more to defend the unions in local government, because they are in hock to those unions; and once more to deny decent services to local taxpayers. We will have none of it, and that is why we reject the new clause.

Mr. Bellotti: Compulsory competitive tendering is a subject of wide concern outside the House. I have already said that the local authority associations are opposed to it. Of course the best local authorities want competitive tendering, but they do not want it to be made compulsory: they want choice, because they are nearest to the people. Let us look, for example, at the quality of our architecture. It is no wonder that the Royal Institute of British Architects is opposed to compulsory competitive tendering—
It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [17 February], put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 275.

Division No. 97]
[10 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Allen, Graham
Cunningham, Dr John


Anderson, Donald
Dalyell, Tam


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Darling, Alistair


Armstrong, Hilary
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Ashton, Joe
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dewar, Donald


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dixon, Don


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Dobson, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Doran, Frank


Battle, John
Duffy, Sir A. E. P.


Beckett, Margaret
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bell, Stuart
Eadie, Alexander


Bellotti, David
Edwards, Huw


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Enright, Derek


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Evans, John (St Helens N)



Benton, Joseph
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bermingham, Gerald
Fatchett, Derek


Bidwell, Sydney
Faulds, Andrew


Blunkett, David
Fearn, Ronald


Boateng, Paul
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boyes, Roland
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bradley, Keith
Fisher, Mark


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Flynn, Paul


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Foster, Derek


Caborn, Richard
Foulkes, George


Callaghan, Jim
Fraser, John


Campbell, Menzies (File NE)
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Canavan, Dennis
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Carr, Michael
George, Bruce


Cartwright, John
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clelland, David
Gould, Bryan


Cohen, Harry
Graham, Thomas


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Corbett, Robin
Grocott, Bruce


Cousins, Jim
Hain, Peter


Cryer, Bob
Hardy, Peter






Harman, Ms Harriet
Nellist, Dave


Haynes, Frank
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
O'Brien, William


Henderson, Doug
O'Hara, Edward


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
O'Neill, Martin


Home Robertson, John
Parry, Robert


Hood, Jimmy
Patchett, Terry



Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pendry, Tom


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Prescott, John


Howells, Geraint
Primarolo, Dawn


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hoyle, Doug
Radice, Giles


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Reid, Dr John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Robertson, George


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Rogers, Allan


Kennedy, Charles
Rooney, Terence


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


Kirkwood, Archy
Ruddock, Joan


Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Sedgemore, Brian


Lambie, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lamond, James
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Leadbitter, Ted
Short, Clare


Lewis, Terry
Skinner, Dennis


Litherland, Robert
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Livsey, Richard
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Snape, Peter


Loyden, Eddie
Soley, Clive


McAllion, John
Spearing, Nigel


McAvoy, Thomas
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McCartney, Ian
Steinberg, Gerry


Macdonald, Calum A.
Stephen, Nicol


McFall, John
Stott, Roger


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Strang, Gavin



McLeish, Henry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McMaster, Gordon
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Madden, Max
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Marek, Dr John
Turner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Vaz, Keith


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wallace, James


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Walley, Joan


Martlew, Eric
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Maxton, John
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Meacher, Michael
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Meale, Alan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Michael, Alun
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wilson, Brian


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Winnick, David


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Worthington, Tony


Morgan, Rhodri
Wray, Jimmy


Morley, Elliot



Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Mr. Ray Powell and


Mullin, Chris
Mr. Eric Illsley.


Murphy, Paul



NOES


Adley, Robert
Bendall, Vivian


Aitken, Jonathan
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Alexander, Richard
Benyon, W.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bevan, David Gilroy



Allason, Rupert
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Amess, David
Body, Sir Richard


Amos, Alan
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arbuthnot, James
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boswell, Tim


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Bottomley, Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Atkinson, David
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Baldry, Tony
Bowis, John


Batiste, Spencer
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Bellingham, Henry
Brandon-Bravo, Martin





Brazier, Julian
Hill, James


Bright, Graham
Hind, Kenneth


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Buck, Sir Antony
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Burns, Simon
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Butcher, John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Carttiss, Michael
Hunter, Andrew


Cash, William
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Irvine, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jack, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Jackson, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Jessel, Toby


Churchill, Mr
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Key, Robert


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Kilfedder, James


Cormack, Patrick
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Couchman, James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knapman, Roger


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Day, Stephen
Knox, David


Devlin, Tim
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dicks, Terry
Latham, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Lawrence, Ivan


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lee, John (Pendle)


Dover, Den
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dunn, Bob
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Eggar, Tim
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Evennett, David
Lord, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Farr, Sir John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fishburn, John Dudley
Mans, Keith


Fookes, Dame Janet
Maples, John


Forman, Nigel
Marland, Paul


Forth, Eric
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Maude, Hon Francis


Freeman, Roger
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


French, Douglas
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fry, Peter
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gale, Roger
Mitchell, Sir David


Gardiner, Sir George
Moate, Roger


Gill, Christopher
Monro, Sir Hector


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Moore, Rt Hon John


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Morrison, Sir Charles


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Moss, Malcolm


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mudd, David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Nelson, Anthony


Gregory, Conal
Neubert, Sir Michael



Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Nicholls, Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Grist, Ian
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Ground, Patrick
Norris, Steve


Hague, William
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Page, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Paice, James


Hannam, Sir John
Patnick, Irvine


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Harris, David
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hawkins, Christopher
Pawsey, James


Hayes, Jerry
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hayward, Robert
Porter, David (Waveney)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Portillo, Michael


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Price, Sir David






Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Taylor, Sir Teddy


Rathbone, Tim
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Temple-Morris, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Thorne, Neil


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thornton, Malcolm


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Thurnham, Peter


Rost, Peter
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rowe, Andrew
Tracey, Richard


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Tredinnick, David


Sackville, Hon Tom
Trippier, David


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Trotter, Neville


Sayeed, Jonathan
Twinn, Dr Ian


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Walden, George


Shelton, Sir William
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waller, Gary


Shersby, Michael
Walters, Sir Dennis


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Warren, Kenneth


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Watts, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Speller, Tony
Wheeler, Sir John


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Whitney, Ray


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Widdecombe, Ann


Squire, Robin
Wiggin, Jerry


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wilkinson, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilshire, David


Stern, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stevens, Lewis
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Yeo, Tim


Stokes, Sir John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sumberg, David



Summerson, Hugo
Tellers for the Noes:


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mr. David Lightbown and


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. John M. Taylor.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Speaker then put forthwith the remaining Questions which he was directed to put at that hour.

Question put, That the remaining amendment standing in the name of a member of the Government be made to the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 202.

Division No. 98]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Aitken, Jonathan
Boswell, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Bottomley, Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Allason, Rupert
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Amess, David
Bowis, John


Amos, Alan
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Arbuthnot, James
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Brazier, Julian


Aspinwall, Jack
Bright, Graham


Atkinson, David
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Browne, John (Winchester)


Baldry, Tony
Buck, Sir Antony


Batiste, Spencer
Burns, Simon


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Butcher, John


Bellingham, Henry
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Carrington, Matthew


Benyon, W.
Carttiss, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cash, William


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Chope, Christopher


Body, Sir Richard
Churchill, Mr


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)





Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushclitfe)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Key, Robert


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Kilfedder, James


Cormack, Patrick
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Couchman, James
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knapman, Roger


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Day, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Devlin, Tim
Knox, David


Dicks, Terry
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dorrell, Stephen
Latham, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawrence, Ivan


Dover, Den
Lee, John (Pendle)


Dunn, Bob
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Eggar, Tim
Lightbown, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fallon, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Farr, Sir John
Lord, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fishburn, John Dudley
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fookes, Dame Janet
Mans, Keith


Forman, Nigel
Maples, John


Forth, Eric
Marland, Paul


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Freeman, Roger
Maude, Hon Francis


French, Douglas
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fry, Peter
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gale, Roger
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gardiner, Sir George
Mitchell, Sir David


Gill, Christopher
Moate, Roger


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Monro, Sir Hector


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Moore, Rt Hon John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Morrison, Sir Charles


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Moss, Malcolm


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mudd, David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Neale, Sir Gerrard



Gregory, Conal
Nelson, Anthony


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Neubert, Sir Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Nicholls, Patrick


Grist, Ian
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Ground, Patrick
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hague, William
Norris, Steve


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, Richard


Hannam, Sir John
Paice, James


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Patnick, Irvine


Harris, David
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hawkins, Christopher
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hayes, Jerry
Pawsey, James


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hayward, Robert
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Powell, William (Corby)


Hill, James
Price, Sir David


Hind, Kenneth
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Rathbone, Tim


Hordern, Sir Peter
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Riddick, Graham


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rost, Peter


Hunter, Andrew
Rowe, Andrew


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Irvine, Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jack, Michael
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Jackson, Robert
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jessel, Toby
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)






Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tracey, Richard


Shelton, Sir William
Tredinnick, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Trippier, David


Shersby, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Speller, Tony
Walden, George


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waller, Gary


Squire, Robin
Walters, Sir Dennis


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Warren, Kenneth


Stern, Michael
Watts, John


Stevens, Lewis
Wells, Bowen


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wheeler, Sir John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Widdecombe, Ann


Stokes, Sir John
Wiggin, Jerry


Sumberg, David
Wilkinson, John


Summerson, Hugo
Wilshire, David


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Wood, Timothy


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Temple-Morris, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)




Thorne, Neil
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thornton, Malcolm
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Sydney Chapman.



Townend, John (Bridlington)



NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Allason, Rupert
Cunningham, Dr John


Allen, Graham
Dalyell, Tarn


Anderson, Donald
Darling, Alistair


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Armstrong, Hilary
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Ashton, Joe
Dewar, Donald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dixon, Don


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dobson, Frank


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Doran, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Duffy, Sir A. E. P.


Battle, John
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Beckett, Margaret
Eadie, Alexander


Bell, Stuart
Edwards, Huw


Bellotti, David
Enright, Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Benton, Joseph
Fatchett, Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Faulds, Andrew


Bidwell, Sydney
Fearn, Ronald


Blunkett, David
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boateng, Paul
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Boyes, Roland
Fisher, Mark


Bradley, Keith
Flannery, Martin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Flynn, Paul


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Foster, Derek


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Foulkes, George


Caborn, Richard
Fraser, John


Callaghan, Jim
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Canavan, Dennis
George, Bruce


Carr, Michael
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Cartwright, John
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gould, Bryan


Clelland, David
Graham, Thomas


Cohen, Harry
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Grocott, Bruce


Corbett, Robin
Hain, Peter


Cousins, Jim
Hardy, Peter


Cryer, Bob
Harman, Ms Harriet





Haynes, Frank
Nellist, Dave


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Henderson, Doug
O'Brien, William


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
O'Hara, Edward


Home Robertson, John
O'Neill, Martin


Hood, Jimmy
Parry, Robert


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Patchett, Terry


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Pendry, Tom


Howells, Geraint
Prescott, John


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hoyle, Doug
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Robertson, George


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Kennedy, Charles
Rogers, Allan


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rooney, Terence


Kirkwood, Archy
Rowlands, Ted


Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Ruddock, Joan


Lambie, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Lamond, James
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Leadbitter, Ted
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lewis, Terry
Short, Clare


Litherland, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Livsey, Richard
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Loyden, Eddie
Snape, Peter


McAllion, John
Soley, Clive


McAvoy, Thomas
Spearing, Nigel


McCartney, Ian
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Macdonald, Calum A.
Steinberg, Gerry


McFall, John
Stephen, Nicol


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Stott, Roger


McLeish, Henry
Strang, Gavin


McMaster, Gordon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McNamara, Kevin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Madden, Max
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Marek, Dr John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Turner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Vaz, Keith


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wallace, James


Martlew, Eric
Walley, Joan


Maxton, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Meacher, Michael
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Meale, Alan
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Michael, Alun
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Winnick, David



Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Worthington, Tony


Morgan, Rhodri
Wray, Jimmy


Morley, Elliot



Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Tellers for the Noes:


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Mr. Ray Powell and


Murphy, Paul
Mr. Eric Illsley.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment No. 5, in clause 1—Publication of information as to standards of performance—page 2, line 11, at end insert—
'(2A) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument vary the period for the time being specified in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) above so as to fix the latest time for the publication of information in accordance with that paragraph at any such time, within the period of nine months after the end of the financial year in question, as may be specified in the order; and a statutory instrument containing an order under this subsection shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'
—accordingly made.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent signified.]

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Portillo.]

The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 201.

Division No. 99]
[10.27 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Aitken, Jonathan
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Alexander, Richard
Fishburn, John Dudley


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fookes, Dame Janet


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Forman, Nigel


Amess, David
Forth, Eric


Amos, Alan
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Arbuthnot, James
Fox, Sir Marcus


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Freeman, Roger


Arnold, Sir Thomas
French, Douglas


Aspinwall, Jack
Fry, Peter


Atkinson, David
Gale, Roger


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gardiner, Sir George


Baldry, Tony
Gill, Christopher


Batiste, Spencer
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bellingham, Henry
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bendall, Vivian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Benyon, W.
Greenway, Harry (Eating N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gregory, Conal


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Body, Sir Richard
Grist, Ian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Ground, Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hague, William


Boswell, Tim
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Bottomley, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hannam, Sir John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bowis, John
Harris, David


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hawkins, Christopher


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hayes, Jerry


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Brazier, Julian
Hayward, Robert


Bright, Graham
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Browne, John (Winchester)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Buck, Sir Antony
Hill, James


Burns, Simon
Hind, Kenneth


Butcher, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Carrington, Matthew
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Carttiss, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cash, William
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunter, Andrew


Chope, Christopher
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Churchill, Mr
Irvine, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jack, Michael


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Jackson, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jessel, Toby


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cormack, Patrick
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Key, Robert


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Kilfedder, James


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Day, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Devlin, Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dicks, Terry
Knapman, Roger


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dover, Den
Knox, David


Dunn, Bob
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Durant, Sir Anthony
Latham, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Lawrence, Ivan


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Evennett, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fallon, Michael
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Farr, Sir John
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)





Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lord, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Speller, Tony


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mans, Keith
Squire, Robin


Maples, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marland, Paul
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stern, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stevens, Lewis


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stokes, Sir John


Mitchell, Sir David
Sumberg, David


Moate, Roger
Summerson, Hugo


Monro, Sir Hector
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moore, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Moss, Malcolm
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thorne, Neil


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thornton, Malcolm


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thurnham, Peter


Norris, Steve
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Tracey, Richard


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tredinnick, David


Page, Richard
Trippier, David


Paice, James
Trotter, Neville


Patnick, Irvine
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Pawsey, James
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walden, George


Porter, David (Waveney)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Portillo, Michael
Waller, Gary


Powell, William (Corby)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Price, Sir David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Warren, Kenneth


Rathbone, Tim
Watts, John


Riddick, Graham
Wells, Bowen


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wheeler, Sir John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Whitney, Ray


Roe, Mrs Marion
Widdecombe, Ann


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wiggin, Jerry


Rost, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Rowe, Andrew
Wilshire, David


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wolfson, Mark


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Wood, Timothy


Sayeed, Jonathan
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Shaw, David (Dover)
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')



Shelton, Sir William
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. David Lightbown and


Shersby, Michael
Mr. John M. Taylor.


Skeet, Sir Trevor



NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Allason, Rupert
Benton, Joseph


Allen, Graham
Bermingham, Gerald


Anderson, Donald
Bidwell, Sydney


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Blunkett, David


Armstrong, Hilary
Boateng, Paul



Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Boyes, Roland


Ashton, Joe
Bradley, Keith


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Barron, Kevin
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Battle, John
Caborn, Richard


Beckett, Margaret
Callaghan, Jim


Bell, Stuart
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Bellotti, David
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Canavan, Dennis






Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Carr, Michael
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cartwright, John
Gould, Bryan


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Graham, Thomas


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cohen, Harry
Grocott, Bruce


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hain, Peter


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hardy, Peter


Corbett, Robin
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cousins, Jim
Haynes, Frank


Cryer, Bob
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Henderson, Doug


Cunningham, Dr John
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Dalyell, Tarn
Home Robertson, John


Darling, Alistair
Hood, Jimmy


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Howells, Geraint


Dewar, Donald
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Dixon, Don
Hoyle, Doug


Dobson, Frank
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Doran, Frank
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Eadie, Alexander
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Enright, Derek
Kennedy, Charles


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Kirkwood, Archy


Fatchett, Derek
Kumar, Dr. Ashok


Fearn, Ronald
Lambie, David


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Lamond, James


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Leadbitter, Ted


Fisher, Mark
Lewis, Terry


Flannery, Martin
Litherland, Robert


Flynn, Paul
Livingstone, Ken


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Livsey, Richard


Foster, Derek
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Foulkes, George
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Fraser, John
Loyden, Eddie


Fyfe, Maria
McAllion, John


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
McAvoy, Thomas


George, Bruce
McCartney, Ian


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Macdonald, Calum A.





McFall, John
Rooney, Terence


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Rowlands, Ted


McLeish, Henry
Ruddock, Joan


McMaster, Gordon
Sedgemore, Brian


McNamara, Kevin
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Madden, Max
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marek, Dr John
Short, Clare


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Maxton, John
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Meacher, Michael
Snape, Peter


Meale, Alan
Soley, Clive


Michael, Alun
Spearing, Nigel


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Steinberg, Gerry


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Stephen, Nicol


Morgan, Rhodri
Stott, Roger


Morley, Elliot
Strang, Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Murphy, Paul
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Nellist, Dave
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Turner, Dennis


O'Brien, William
Vaz, Keith


O'Hara, Edward
Wallace, James


O'Neill, Martin
Walley, Joan


Parry, Robert
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Patchett, Terry
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Pendry, Tom
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Prescott, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Primarolo, Dawn
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Winnick, David


Radice, Giles
Worthington, Tony


Randall, Stuart
Wray, Jimmy


Redmond, Martin



Reid, Dr John
Tellers for the Noes:


Robertson, George
Mr. Ray Powell and


Robinson, Geoffrey
Mr. Eric Illsley.


Rogers, Allan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move,
That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.
The regulations will be made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979. The purpose of the regulations is to increase by 5 per cent. the amounts of compensation paid under the Act to those who first satisfy all the conditions of entitlement on or after 1 April 1992.
The 1979 Act set up a scheme to provide lump sum payments to sufferers from dust-related diseases or, when the sufferers have died, to their dependants. In law, the remedy for people suffering from those diseases is to sue the employer concerned for damages. But, because of the time it takes for the disease to develop, diagnosis may not be made for 20 to 30 years or more after exposure and the employer or employers responsible may no longer exist. The aim of the scheme, therefore, is to provide a measure of compensation to those who cannot claim it in the normal way through the courts. I must stress, however, that it has never been the intention of the Act to provide an alternative to taking civil action in the courts.
There are three basic conditions of entitlement which must be satisfied before a payment is made to a claimant: that there is no relevant employer who can be sued; that no court action has been brought and no compensation has been received in respect of the disease; and that disablement benefits have been awarded.
The conditions of the Act are interpreted by my Department as sympathetically as the Act will allow, but we must ensure that the payment conditions are met.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am sorry to interrupt but does the Department's interpretation cover Scots law? Will the Minister look sympathetically on a ten-minute Bill —it is the only way that one can raise the matter—on 17 March? The reason for its introduction is a report of the Law Commission due on 5 March, which will seek to remedy the anomaly that estates in Scotland cannot claim in the same way as estates in England. That disadvantages some thousands of people, particularly those who worked with asbestos and suffer from mesothelioma in some way, who worked in the construction industry and in particular the shipyards.

Mr. Forth: As the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter on a previous occasion, I am aware of his continuing interest in it. As he said, the report has yet to be published. We are not yet aware of what it will recommend, but I am confident that whatever recommendations it makes will be considered sympathetically in the light of the facts that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I will certainly ensure that the point that he raised is brought to the attention of my colleagues in the Scottish Office in order that weight is added to his request for it to be considered in the light of the matter that we are debating this evening.
The Government have given an undertaking to Parliament to review the amounts regularly to maintain the value of the payments under the terms of the regulations. Last year, Parliament approved an increase of

9 per cent. from April to take account of the movement in the index of retail prices during the preceding 12 months. The proposed increase this year is 5 per cent., the aim, again, being to keep the payments in line with inflation. I wish to re-emphasise that my Department does all that it can to administer the Act in a sympathetic way. We recognise that each case is an individual disaster and we are as generous as the statute will allow.

Dr. Kim Howells: But does the Minister recognise that the rationalisation of hospital provision in coalfields which no longer have any coal mines or, like south Wales, have few coal mines has created a deep fear among men who are still in the industry that expertise in diagnosing pneumoconiosis contracted, for example, in the past decade simply will not be available in future? Has he anything to say about that? It is a great worry to people currently working in the industry.

Mr. Forth: I understand the basis for such misgivings, but they are misplaced. I am confident that the machinery available through both the Department of Social Security procedures necessary to establish the claim to benefit and the medical boards which are called in wherever necessary will be available on a permanent basis. Although I recognise the developments that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I see no reason to believe that they will reduce the level of expertise that is available to make a fair and proper assessment of claims. I can give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I thank the Minister for saying that, and I hope that he will put pressure on his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health to maintain the facilities available within the South Glamorgan area to service the coal mining communities that we represent. However, it is not as simple as that. There are outstanding instances throughout the south Wales coalfield of, for example, miners who are diagnosed as 100 per cent. in life and receive a disability pension and benefits relating to the disease, but on death at the post mortem they are excluded from the lump sum benefit outlined in the regulations.
It is not simple. We have had to face distressing situations with families who suddenly find themselves destitute because no compensation is payable after death, although the miner or ex-miner had received compensation for a considerable period when alive.

Mr. Forth: I confess that I have not been aware of the problem that hon. Members have mentioned. They should write to me with the appropriate background and details to the cases. If a problem arises from the administration of the regulations I shall certainly want to consider it. I have already given an undertaking that our concern is to ensure that we give the maximum allowable under the regulations because, by definition, they are designed to deal with real human distress. If there is an inhibition in the regulations I would want to ensure that it was dealt with, as far as possible.

Mr. William O'Brien: I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the Minister, but, following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), it is usually found on post mortem that the deceased was suffering from emphysema. May I draw the Minister's attention to the report of the Institute


of Occupational Medicine at Edinburgh university, which discusses the causes of disability in coal miners. I shall pass the report to the Minister. A passage in it states:
There was a clear association between the occurrence of … emphysema and the amount of dust to which a man had been exposed during life, allowing for the effect of age and smoking. This association was more definite in men showing some dust-related fibrosis and emphysema was more likely the greater the coal contact of the dust exposure.
In other words, there is evidence to show that emphysema in coal miners has been caused through the conditions that they were working in. That concern is expressed by many families of former mine workers. Therefore, will the Minister consider the situation carefully and try to impart to his colleagues at the Department of Health that compensation should be paid to coal miners with emphysema because of the evidence available, according to the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh? Perhaps the Minister would take note of that and a copy of the report could be obtained, in the interests of miners and their dependants.

Mr. Forth: I am advised that in January 1990 the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council—the independent body which advises the Secretary of State for Social Services on the prescription of industrial diseases—announced a further study of bronchitis and emphysema in workers in the metal-producing industries. A further IIAC study on bronchitis and emphysema in coal miners was also announced in October 1991 and the results of both studies should be published later this year. I think that that shows that the problem that the hon. Member mentioned has been recognised in the sense that it is being looked into. Although such studies always take longer than many hon. Members would wish, I think that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point. It is being actively considered and will be reported on later this year.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The Minister appears to believe that the study commenced in 1991. If he checks the record, he will find that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) has presented a Bill to deal with this problem on at least half a dozen times in the past decade. Surely we do not need to consider further research at this stage, given that a great deal of research was carried out more than 10 years ago.

Mr. Forth: The problem is that we are dealing with an issue that is subject to contention and judgment. We are talking about the attribution of particular conditions to particular working environments. The issue involves the payment of compensation and the judgment of eligibility for such payments. I hope that the Opposition accept that we must get matters right, in fairness to the sufferers and, if I may dare say in this context—I hope that hon. Members will not take this amiss—the taxpayers. It is a tax-funded scheme which is designed to compensate.
I believe that the study that I have mentioned is a step in the right direction. I ask hon. Members to be patient for just a little longer until its results are available. If it shows that the connections mentioned by the Opposition exist, I am confident that the appropriate action will be taken. However tempting it might be, a private Member's Bill is not necessarily the right means by which to pursue the matter.

Mr. Rogers: Part of the problem is obtaining the correct diagnosis in life. Pneumoconiosis is caused by the scarring

of the lung tissue by silicates that are inhaled. That ailment is often obscured by other associated diseases, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (M r. O'Brien). With the use of electron microscopy one can detect pneumoconiosis, but, unless such sophisticated equipment is used, the proper diagnosis is not obtained. Therefore, many people who should receive benefit do not and that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) has pushed his Bill. It would clear up such areas of doubt.

Mr. Forth: The studies that I have mentioned should cover that problem. If hon. Members are not satisfied that my comments cover the issue raised, they should take the matter up with me so that I can do my best to ensure that their concerns are met. If necessary, we shall reconsider the issue in another study. That is the way in which to proceed.
No one wants to conceal matters or to delay their resolution. Opposition Members are expert in this problem and deal with many constituency cases and I am sure that they understand that progress must be steady and undertaken on a proper basis. We are dealing with complex, often contentious, matters. However, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) suggested, many of the problems can be overcome with advanced technology.
Given the background, it is right that we should identify the areas of difficulty and then identify how to resolve them. If hon. Members are not satisfied with my proposals, they should raise the matter with me in the normal way.

Mr. Andy Stewart: I welcome my hon. Friend's guarantee to address immediately any recommendations that the report may make. There are just as many Conservative Members as Labour Members who are anxious that this matter should be addressed.

Mr. Forth: I would not like to dispute whether my hon. Friend is numerically accurate, but I would not dispute my hon. Friend's commitment to his constituents, which is at least the equal of that of any Opposition Member.
I hope that there is no contention about this issue. All hon. Members with constituents affected by pneumoconiosis deal with matters that involve issues of great tragedy and family and human deprivation. I hope that my Department always handles such cases sensitively and positively within the terms of the existing regulations. We are talking here about the somewhat different issue of any definition or redefinition of the boundaries within which the regulations operate. We need not be divided on that, and I hope that we can move forward on it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: We are nearing a general election. Sensitive to their election prospects, the Government have in recent weeks been saying and doing things that have not been unhelpful to our constituents. Tonight, on the eve of the election, Opposition Members are offering the Minister a chance to win some glory. Recognising the correlation between emphysema and pneumoconiosis and the fact that payments are made according to certain guidelines, we invite the Minister to say that the Government will make a positive recommendation to the body examining the whole issue to the effect that the link between emphysema and pneumoconiosis should be strengthened to the point at which private Member's legislation on the subject is acceptable. That would mean it becoming law tomorrow.


We simply want a commitment from the Minister, on behalf of the Government, that they will support our case. That might result in the Conservatives pinching another vote. Or we might pinch another 20,000 votes. It is election time. The Minister should do the right thing and say that the Government support us in principle.

Mr. Forth: It is with some trepidation that I tell the hon. Gentleman, in view of his experience in this place, that were he to find himself a Minister in a future Labour Government, which might surprise him more than it would surprise me—but one never knows—he would find that what he seeks is not as simple as he suggests. Given the nature of the area that we are discussing, it is not just a question of a Minister waving a wand and saying, "Because I wish it to be so, it shall be so." If it were that easy, Opposition Members would be suspicious, and rightly so.
I have said that there is an ongoing study into the point that Opposition Members have raised. That will report later this year. I have no doubt that if that report found what they believe it will find, the appropriate action would follow. That is the right course, rather than Ministers giving instant responses, tempted though they might be by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
We recognise each case on its merits and deal with it as generously as possible. I emphasise that the purpose of the Act has never been to take on the liabilities of employers, and we must be satisfied that there is no employer against whom a single claim for damages could be made. It is a long-standing measure which the House debates each year. I hope that, having heard my remarks, hon. Members will support the regulations.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: We must place in context the fact that every one of those who benefit under the regulations and all those about whom my hon. Friends are talking have suffered considerably because of the actions of their former, and in some cases their continuing, employers. They have given their health for the nation's economy.
The regulations do not deal directly with the coal industry, in which a superior compensation scheme is already in existence. Even so, the experience of my hon. Friends and the testimony that they bring before the House about the difficulties of claiming under British Coal's scheme and the scheme under the regulations are relevant, because much frustration exists. People who have been diagnosed by their GPs, and having had that diagnosis confirmed by a consultant, still find themselves refused compensation under either scheme because they are considered to have insufficient disability to benefit.
The Minister said that his Department always tries to treat each case sympathetically, but we are talking about an extremely vulnerable group of people and time is often of the essence. The overwhelming bulk of people who benefit under the pneumoconiosis regulations are former asbestos workers. As I am one of those former asbestos workers, I have a certain vested interest in the regulations. The pattern of ages at which people begin to be seriously affected by the impact of asbestos shows that it happens many years after they have worked in that industry.
For example, of those assessed as suffering from asbestososis in 1990, the overwhelming majority were in their late 50s or older before their condition was diagnosed. At that stage in life, people often feel that they cannot wait for a prolonged review on whether the regulations can be extended. The matter is therefore urgent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) raised an associated matter. He rightly pointed out that the full impact of those conditions is often visible only at an autopsy.

Mr. Rogers: To illustrate that point, my brother-in-law left a colliery in south Wales in 1945 and went to live in Newark, where he worked in Ransome and Marles until he had another industrial accident. Only about 10 years ago, when he was 70 or 73, he was diagnosed—as a result of action by the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, which helped him, from its Nottingham office, to have a proper medical examination —as having pneumoconiosis. That was almost 40 years after he had left the industry, but he had been insidiously ill all the time.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend's point is valid. Of the 24 asbestos workers who were considered to be between 80 and 100 per cent. disabled in 1990, all but four were in their 60s. They had been exposed to asbestos early in their working lives and the full impact of that exposure had been diagnosed only at that late stage.
Although the Minister is right to say that compensation is funded by direct taxation, we are not talking about vast sums of taxpayers' money in relative terms, but of some £1·5 million in the current financial year. Neither are we talking about massive pay-offs to a lucky—I use that word hesitantly—minority who benefit under the scheme. A typical payment this year will be about £10,000. One must go down the different scales of assessment to see who will qualify for a payment of £10,000. Specifically, for someone suffering 30 per cent. disability to receive £10,000, he or she must be at least 60 years of age. The Minister must appreciate that people will receive relatively little compensation towards the end of their lives, even though they may have suffered for many years.
I hope that the Minister will consider other issues sympathetically, because the Government have the power to look afresh at the defects in the scheme. They should consider in particular the relative advantages in the coal industry scheme, an important feature of which is the opportunity for reassessment. One of the problems with pneumoconiosis and asbestosis is that they are progressive and the compensation is awarded according to the level of disability when the initial diagnosis takes place. Under the coal board scheme—I checked this information today with the National Union of Mineworkers, which has more experience of it than anybody—in the most recent year for which figures are available, although some 300 new pneumoconiosis cases were placed on the books, about 150 people returned for reassessment because their condition had deteriorated.
We know that, in any given year, half of those presenting themselves could be replicated by people who should go back for re-examination. Under the coal board scheme, that is possible, but it is not possible under the regulations. Somebody who, at the age of 50, is assessed as being 10 per cent. disabled will receive the grand sum of a


little more than £10,000. In another two or three years, he might have become 50 per cent. disabled so he will have forgone the extra £20,000 that he would have received if he had been—I say this hesitantly—lucky enough to be patient and to wait until he was diagnosed as having severe pneumoconiosis. That does not seem to be a fair and acceptable way to run a scheme, as it appears to be a lottery as to when one is first taken on to the doctor's books.
Another advantage of the coal industry scheme is that allowance is made for people who can continue to work, albeit on reduced earnings. It is recognised that someone who cannot do the work that he was once capable of doing is still given some allowance to make up his earnings to guarantee an acceptable standard of living. No such facility exists in the regulations. Those two changes would transform the regulations and the position of the many victims of past industrial practices.
The bulk of claimants under the regulations are former asbestos workers. The Minister may or may not be aware of it, but it is far from being beyond living memory that while management in industries such as the asbestos industry knew very well of the dangers of asbestos—that it was a major cause of cancer and that asbestosis was a particularly unpleasant way of killing employees—the safety practices of that industry were outrageous. That is not an abstract observation; I have seen and breathed the conditions in those factories at the time. Some people of my generation will be recipients of the scheme in years to come, and will doubtless be grateful for any change that the Minister can make.
I should like to place on record my appreciation of the continuing interest in the regulations of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond). He would have been with us tonight but, unfortunately, he had to chair a Committee in another part of the House. Over the years, he has taken a keen interest in the problems of his constituents who have suffered from a condition prevalent in the textile industry: byssinosis.
My hon. Friend repeatedly asked Ministers to reconsider the position in that industry. The common practice, particularly among women workers, was to spend a lifetime moving from one firm to another, with short stays at each firm. Therefore, it becomes almost

impossible to identify the specific time and firm responsible for the byssinosis suffered by the women later in life. The Minister has already outlined the difficulty that they face. As some firms may still trade and, theoretically, the women may have a claim for compensation against a firm, they cannot claim under the regulations.
According to the Employment Gazette of September 1991, the number of people presenting themselves as sufferers of byssinosis is low; it is literally fewer than three dozen. If we were to consider making the scheme a little more liberal in its interpretation, we could do something significant, at little cost to the scheme's funding, for those who are suffering in a particularly unpleasant way.
The total funding for this financial year will be about £1·5 million. The Minister will be able to conform that, in recent years, the overall number of claimants coming forward and the total financial liability of the scheme have both dropped. Next year's budget for the scheme is £1·4 million—less in both cash and real terms than this year's expenditure. I trust that the budget is based on the recognition that the number of people coming forward is diminishing. I hope, however, that the Minister can assure us that, if there is a shortfall next year, no attempt will be made to limit the number of people who can benefit under the scheme.
As I have said, every one of the people concerned is a victim of the industrial practices of our society. They are our common responsibility, because they gave their health for the sake of industrial production. We are in debt to them, and the last Labour Government recognised that by introducing the regulations: they were one of the last pieces of legislation that they introduced, and they are particularly important to the victims to whom I have referred.
The Minister has announced an uprating of around 5 per cent., in line with the retail prices index. In the light of that, my hon. Friends and I will not oppose the motion. However, there are a number of ways in which the victims' lives could be made at least a little easier in what are, in many cases, their final years, given some easement in the interpretation of the scheme. I hope that the Minister will consider carefully what has been said, and will assure us that he will at least examine in detail whether such easement is possible.

Mr. Barry Field: I wish to address my few remarks to the provision for victims of the consequences of working with asbestos. I pay tribute to the Isle of Wight County Press, which has constantly reported the number of cases of mesothelioma among workers who were employed in the shipyard industries on the Isle of Wight and worked in a heavy asbestos environment. Articles and letters in our local paper describe the atmosphere as being like a white snowstorm. Recently, an article spoke of apprentices engaging in "snowball fights" with asbestos.
I understand that one of the problems with the disease is that it does not always show up on an ordinary chest X-ray. I have sought the advice of our director of public health, Dr. Brian Keeble, and have asked whether, now that the island has raised the money for its own scanner, it would be possible to organise a programme of screening for the island's population in view of the large number of people employed in our shipyard industry in the past.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that Jimmy Reid, who did the programme for Channel 4, revealed in that excellent programme that the asbestos danger had first been suspected as long ago as 1898? He has seen documents relating to the 1930s which warned shipbuilding employers about the dangers of asbestos. On the programme, however, we saw John Rannie saying how wonderful it was that his great Queens liners built on Clydeside—I am sure that the same is true of the Isle of Wight—were covered in asbestos, because it would prevent fire. That was all done when, apparently, it was known how dangerous asbestos was to human beings.

Mr. Field: I did not see the programme. Perhaps I could borrow a tape of it from the hon. Gentleman.
I particularly wish to raise the case of Eric Frederick Bolan, who died at the age of 61. Unusually for one of my constituents, he was not, so far as his relatives are aware, employed in the shipyard industry; he was a self-employed painter. From what his family has been able to ascertain, it seems that he worked on a contract with Sandown and Shanklin urban district council, where he was involved in asbestos removal. His son, Mike Bolan, came to see me recently at my surgery on behalf of his mother and I have their permission to raise this case today.
The problem is that it is very difficult for a widow to undertake litigation when a disease is diagnosed only very late or, as has occurred in a number of cases, at the coroner's inquest—a point alluded to by a number of Opposition Members. The Isle of Wight coroner, on account of the high level of employment in the industry, is meticulous about ensuring that the disease is properly diagnosed.
The order provides some financial help, but I am sure that the Minister will appreciate the problems involved in proving a connection with a previous employer. I see that in the Third Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. which considered these regulations on 14 March 1991 the Minister said, as reported at column 6 of Hansard, that if evidence was brought before him as to the way the regulations were operating he would examine it very carefully. I know that it would be a great comfort to all my constituents, as well as to the Bolan family and others who have worked in the shipbuilding industry, if my

hon. Friend could reaffirm again today that he will give careful consideration to these concerns when they are drawn to his attention.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Many of the pneumoconiosis sufferers who will benefit from the measure suffer also from another disease, emphysema. However, they will receive no compensation for that disease if the pneumoconiosis from which they suffer amounts to no more than 50 per cent. If Conservative Members who do not represent mining community constituencies could see the condition of those who are suffering from 50 per cent. pneumoconiosis as well as emphysema, they would appreciate what suffering these men experience.
On five or six occasions I have introduced Bills to highlight the problems faced by these unfortunate mineworkers. The Minister said earlier that to introduce Bills is not the right way to address the problem, but I can think of no other way in which I could have highlighted it. I believe that the first Bills that I introduced persuaded the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, under the chairmanship at that time of Professor Lowe, to undertake studies of the problem.
During the research that I undertook before introducing my Bills I presented 19 learned papers to the House. I have caused articles to be published in The Lancet, all of which supported the view that mineworkers' emphysema was caused by working underground in coal mines. I was given the opportunity to give both written and oral evidence to the council when it conducted its last inquiry. I challenged the council to refute the learned medical evidence and research papers that I relied upon. I said that if it could do so I would understand if it found against my case. At no time was the council able to refute the medical evidence and research that I had presented. It was strong research, much of it headed by Dr. Anne Cockroft, a chest consultant who was previously at St. Thomas's hospital.
Many of the men who would have benefited from the regulations have died during the last 10 years. They never received the compensation that was rightfully theirs. Fewer people are suffering now than when I began introducing Bills because, first, improvements have been made in dust suppression and, secondly, there are fewer pits. However, the problem is as great for the widows who have been left behind.
One must see such men to understand their problems. Only a fortnight ago, I saw men in Pontefract general infirmary—previously strong, hard-working miners—who rely on oxygen masks for their existence. They were suffering from emphysema and pneumoconiosis. Emphysema is a far more disabling disease than pneumoconiosis. Men who are suffering from it cannot walk a yard or lift a cup to their lips to drink tea, and they contracted the disease because of their work in the mining industry.
I was encouraged by the Minister saying that he expects a further report from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council at the end of the year. Has it recently conducted a further investigation of the problem? If so, I am not aware of it.
I do not want to end my few remarks on a sour note, but the last time that the Industrial Injuries Advisory


Council rejected such evidence many people thought that it had been influenced by the Government. I never said that and I have no evidence to suggest that that was true. Professor Harrington, who became chairman of the council, assured me that it was not true. I know that many men have been denied the compensation to which they were entitled for the disease that they contracted from their employment.
I can hope only that the council will advise the Minister that this disease should be prescribed. If it fails to do so, it will ignore all the evidence that has been presented to it. I stand by my remarks to the council: prove that the evidence of the 19 learned papers that I have presented is wrong and I shall have no case. So far, the council has not been able to refute that evidence.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) rightly mentioned one of his constituents, but I assure him that I could mention hundreds of people in my area who have died an early death because of this disease. I welcome any improvement in the regulations, but I hope that the Minister, who said that he is prepared to listen—and I believe him—will influence the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council and refer it to the evidence that is available and the work that has been done, because many senior members of the medical profession have assured me that no more evidence can be advanced to prove that these men are suffering from an industrial disease. The only way that it can be done, other than on the basis of the present evidence, is after a man has died. That is too late. I hope that the Minister will take that on board, give us his sympathy and—if this is the correct word—pressurise the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. If the council's fear was the high costs involved because there were hundreds and probably thousands of such men, the Minister can tell the council that many are now dead. Will it please try to help those who are left?

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) illustrates, alas, the need for what has become virtually an annual debate. I should have hoped that we could have passed an uprating motion on the nod or wish it godspeed with a few words. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend has shown, we have mixed feelings about the motion. He has had the misfortune not to have properly drafted private Members' Bills on the issue passed. I have had the good fortune to have one become law.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) mentioned the shipyards on the Isle of Wight and a particular case. If what he said is true of the Isle of Wight, I leave it to the House to imagine what has, alas, been true of the Thameside and east London areas and of the whole port of London area where, for the past 20 years or so, asbestosis caused by asbestos inhalation has been a scourge. We know of the miners' problems. This is a matter related to the boilers of ships and power stations and to the insulation and equipment of the same, to refrigeration and cold stores, where insulation is also important, and to the lagging of pipes.
For many years the port of London was—and still is in some respects—the biggest port in the country. I need hardly say that in such a dockland area contractors 'were thick on the ground. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight

said, dockers unloaded unaware of the risks. The problem has existed in east London for a long time and I wish to draw the House's attention to the struggle I had to help one man. The example illustrates something to which many hon. Gentlemen do not give credence—the opportunity that we have to introduce private Members' Bills.
A man came to my advice service one morning, leaning on a stick, wheezing and coughing. He said that his name was Archie Morton and that he was dying. He had been working in dust and asbestos and had tried to get compensation through court action. He was backed by his union and was glad that the case had been settled out of court for £25,000, with which he had purchased a motor car to get around and which he intended to use to give his family a good time, as he said, "before I go".
With the redoutable Mrs. Nancy Tait of the Society for the Prevention of Asbestosis and Industrial Diseases, we plotted what should be done. Mr. Morton was convinced that a post mortem would show that the panel before which he had appeared and which had turned him down had made an incorrect diagnosis. Alas, through a quirk of legislation, Archie Morton never had a post mortem, so the truth of his condition was never known.
As a result, I had the honour and privilege of introducing in the House in 1981 the Industrial Diseases (Notification) Bill, which was then enacted. Under the Bill, if a general practitioner or hospital surgeon had cause to think that a person's occupation might have been a contributory factor to his death, he could mark the death certificate accordingly and so cause a post mortem to be held. We cannot identify the accuracy of tribunals and panels, to which my hon. Friends have referred, unless checking can be done by such means.
The Act is also, I hope, a tool for detecting industrial or occupational diseases hitherto unknown. It is only by backtracking through medical investigation of people whose lives may have been foreshortened by virtue of their occupation that we can uncover hitherto unknown industrial risks.

Mr. Barry Field: I do not wish to sound unnecessarily contentious, but when the hon. Gentleman mentioned the case of Archie Morton on an earlier occasion he stated that the post mortem showed that Archie Morton
was justified in going to the panel, which turned him down time after time."—[Official Report, 5 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 692.]
The report says that a post mortem was indeed carried out.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That may have been the case. It is two years since I made that speech and my memory may be at fault. The point is valid either way. When that case happened, post mortems were not so general as they are now. The point of principle is clearly there. The fact that my local newspaper, the Newham Recorder, lists cases year after year in which the Walthamstow coroner certifies death from asbestosis shows that man after man and family after family are in that unhappy position.
In that area, for some reason that I do not understand, there still appears to be official resistance. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford mentioned the report that has been sent to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. According to what he said—I am sure that he is right—there is a good deal of medical evidence to back up a case for compensation, but so far it has been


officially refused. I presume that the council says that positive evidence cannot be found to prove that, among other matters which may be involved, there is a positive link between the occupation and, in the case that my hon. Friend mentioned, emphysema.
In this area, we should give the benefit of the doubt to the family and to the person who has suffered an early death. In the case of the existing panel, it is not a matter of proving a link, because the link has already been proved for miners, slate quarry workers and asbestosis victims. My experience of cases about which constituents have written to me is that there is still some dissatisfaction among Members of Parliament and among the families who write to us about the procedures of the panel.
I do not want to go into individual cases or to go into scientific detail at this point—I do not think that that would be right or reasonable—but if the Society for the Prevention of Asbestosis and Industrial Diseases or any of my hon. Friends can put particular matters to the Minister, will he undertake to consider them seriously?
It is unfortunate that we have to have this debate annually or biennially to uprate what is due to sufferers. It should not be necessary. My constituents look around and see great expenditure on public works, some useful and some not so useful. Nearly £1,000 million is being spent on roads and railways, with some not yet being developed in the docklands. Yet in pneumoconiosis cases, which would not involve much public expenditure, there is still a need for much letter-writing to establish proof. We have to be more careful about what we do.
I hope that the Minister will consider the procedures carefully so that there will be no suspicion of Victorian penny-pinching and we may give these unfortunate people and their families what they should have.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I will be brief. I want to draw the Minister's attention to the struggle that we had to establish pneumoconiosis as an industrial disease and the problems and difficulties that many of us have since faced in our constituencies to get just rewards for sufferers not only of pneumoconiosis but of asbestosis. It still is a struggle. We should not allow the Minister to feel that we are happy with the uprating and with the scheme. However good the scheme is, our constituents have enormous difficulty in getting into it.
In the history of pneumoconiosis, the dread of widows was that it would be below heart attack, hypertension and emphysema as a cause of death. Although it might be obvious that the other illnesses were a consequence of the pneumoconiosis, because that was not the primary cause of death—in other words, because it was not at the top of the list, because the doctor had been careless—compensation might not be paid. Fortunately, the scheme now says that if pneumoconiosis is a contributory factor to death, compensation can be paid. That was a substantial step forward.
There is still a problem about the mobility allowance. Constituents who live in a valley have only two options —to go up or down. When the person goes for a medical examination for the mobility allowance, ease of perambulation on a flat surface is the criterion for the award. However much one tries to point out to doctors

that constituents cannot go to a shop without going downhill and then back uphill, or vice versa, the regulations do not allow that to be taken into account. There is a constant battle to get compensation.
With pneumoconiosis there is also the problem of diagnosis in life; often it can be proven only by a post mortem. A person will suffer for a long time when the pneumoconiosis is shrouded by associated illnesses such as emphysema.
I mentioned one of my family. I could have mentioned others who went through life being diagnosed as having emphysema. Only in death was pneumoconiosis discovered. For 30 or 40 years, the compensation that should have been paid to them was not paid. When the Minister receives the report—from yet another body that is looking into the matter—he should consider carefully not just the framework of the scheme but access to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) mentioned the problems of asbestosis, as did the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field). Asbestosis is a problem which, oddly enough, does not arise particularly often in mining valleys, but one of my constituents had been working in the dismantling of the power station at Aberthaw and landed up with asbestosis. One of the problems with that disease—as opposed to pneumoconiosis—is that the asbestos fibres that get into the lung do not merely scar the tissue, which is then more readily identified in normal X-rays; the fibres are shrouded by carcinogenic growths and one cannot even diagnose asbestosis because of the growths. It requires a specialist in quite a narrow field to identify the problem.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South, I pay tribute to Nancy Tait of the Society for the Prevention of Asbestosis and Industrial Diseases for the enormous amount of work that she has done. One constituent of mine had come to the end of his tether. He had struggled to get compensation. He was dying of cancer of the lung as a result of asbestos fibres. He had been offered the derisory figure of about £2,500. Hon. Members know what it is like with some cases: one has to be a lawyer; one has to bone up on medical knowledge to fight the case and slog away at it. After two years of hard work, my constituent received £75,000. Two or three years before, he had been told, "It is £2,500 or nothing."
The attitude of employers in the industry who are not prepared to compensate even though they are not taking the proper safety precautions to protect people handling these known death-giving substances also needs to be looked at again. It is only with the development of electromicroscopy that asbestosis can be properly identified, because of the shrouding of the fibres by what are often carcinogenic growths.
I reiterate that we can create the most fantastic schemes, with the most fantastic amounts of compensation but unless we facilitate access to the schemes to enable people to obtain that compensation, the schemes might as well not be there in the first place. I plead with the Minister to look carefully at the report when it is published so that our constituents and his—I am sure that he has the same problems—can receive the benefit to which they are justly entitled.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I cannot pretend that I can speak on this matter with anything like the personal authority of my hon. Friends the Members for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). I do, however, speak with sincere passion. I became a Member of Parliament partly through an act of the now defunct Shale Miners Union and with the support, at the selection conference, of the National Union of Mineworkers. As a non-miner, I have always felt a special obligation and during my first 10 years in the House that obligation very often took the form of going to constituents' homes and finding oneself talking to men of 50 or 55 who could not climb their own stairs for lack of breath. To a non-miner, that leaves a lasting effect.
Peggy Herbison and others struggled to have chronic bronchitis, emphysema and pneumoconiosis scheduled as industrial diseases. It was a long, hard struggle because the truth of the matter is that the price of coal is too often pneumoconiosis and, frankly, life itself. If anybody asks questions about my strident support for nuclear power, it is partly that I have attended far too many funerals of middle-aged and young miners to think that if there is an alternative we should make use of it. But I digress.
I wish to direct the Minister's attention to this urgent, special Scottish problem and to express my good fortune that this morning, after queuing from half past six, if that is good fortune, I was able to table a motion for a ten-minute Bill for 17 March entitled "The Effect of Death on Damages (Scotland) Bill". The motion states:
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision in Scotland similar to that in England and Wales in respect of the effect of the death of a person upon any claim by or on behalf of that person for compensation or damages; to make specific provision for the making of claims in respect of asbestosis, mesothelioma and other industrial diseases and conditions; and for connected purposes.
Normally, ten-minute Bills, unfortunately, are tilting at windmills. We all know that a ten-minute Bill hardly ever becomes law. However, I make a special case to the Minister on this occasion. On 5 March, the Scottish Law Commission will report on this very subject, as indeed the Minister has acknowledged. There is every reason to believe that the Law Commission will come down, as every other expert has, on the side of the argument for bringing Scottish law into line with English law in this respect. I am not one of those who think that Scottish law is in any way inferior to English law—often it is better—but, bluntly, in this case it is a jolly sight worse.
I refer the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) to a remarkably powerful Channel 4 documentary called "The Cost of a Ship", which was done by my old friend Jimmy Reid, and produced by Bill Thomson. It makes the point that, along with many Scots, we are ashamed of ourselves in this matter of our law. I shall tell the House of Commons precisely what has been happening.
Lawyers acting on behalf of their clients have used delay as a tactic. In England, estates can pursue legal proceedings. In Scotland, once death takes place, the level of compensation is very much less and the estate cannot operate in the same way as in England. The sum and substance of that is that the west of Scotland has the highest rate of mesothelioma among any white population anywhere in the world. That is because of the history of the shipyards. On that film, we saw the late John Rannie—he was a considerable man in many ways and I do not decry

him—boasting that, as manager of the yard which produced the enormous Queens liners, he was extremely proud that they had been working on asbestos and spraying it to cut down the risk of fire.
I have gone through the agony of a school, Linlithgow Academy, with asbestos problems—the whole place has to be evacuated. The relevant Minister, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), was very generous about the matter and we had an extremely good interview with him from Lothian region. I have to say in the same breath that the Scottish Office itself now has to move out of new St. Andrews house for precisely the same problems. The Minister knows the agony that his Scottish colleagues are going through.
The truth of the matter is that asbestos is a very dangerous substance. I wish to ask the Government a particular and precise question arising out of Jimmy Reid's film. I did not know this, although I have been immersed in the subject with a constituency case—the cause célèbre of Alec Horne—but in that programme Jimmy Reid and his researchers asserted that the danger of asbestos was first suspected in 1898. They further asserted that they had seen papers which showed that in the 1930s massive amounts of paper was submitted to the shipyard owners stating that asbestos was dangerous.
I do not pretend that the evidence has the same precision as that now produced by the electromicroscopes to which my hon. Friend the Member for the Rhondda referred. Nevertheless, the direct question is this: in the view of the Department of Employment, in what year or group of years did it first become evident that asbestos was so dangerous? The answer to that question is obviously important because of the interpretation in the courts. It is one thing if the employers had evidence that what they were doing was dangerous for their employees. That is a huge question mark, for compensation.
The change in the law is urgent. I must be frank with the Minister. Our worry is that, whoever wins the election, the matter will somehow be relegated down the list to 1993. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford knows exactly the history of legislation such as this being pushed down the list. I do not pretend that if my right hon. and hon. Friends come to power the first, second or third Bill will be on this subject. Equally, if there is a new Conservative Government I doubt that the matter will be high on the list. Parliament will find other, more pressing matters.
I am told, however, that there is such a degree of agreement among officials and Ministers that with good will a Bill could be put through. I do not suggest that a ten-minute Bill, let alone my Bill, is the way to do it. I believe that such measures should be introduced by the Government with the aid of the departmental lawyers and not with the resources available to private Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford nods in assent because he knows the difficulty.
The Department of Employment would have the unanimous support of my Scottish Labour colleagues—I have talked to almost all, if not all, those concerned—if it introduced a Bill as soon as the Law Commission reported. I gather that that would not be difficult and that the Scottish Office knows exactly what has to be done to synchronise the law between Scotland and England. I plead with it to take action, for the sake of sufferers who are getting older, more desperate and in greater need, and in view of the fact that it is asserted by Jimmy Reid and Bill


Thomson who have gone into the matter that mesothelioma has not yet peaked. As my hon. Friends have said, it is a delayed action.
I do not want to take up any more time. The House has been patient with me. I make an impassioned plea to cut through the red tape and to get hold of the Scottish Office, which I believe has good will in this matter. I believe that the Department of Employment also has good will. I plead with the Government to do something before this Parliament ends its own life.

Mr. Forth: I shall try to answer the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) immediately because he is tempting me—an English Minister—on to Scottish territory. He has rightly taken the opportunity to raise a matter which is germane to the debate but which unfortunately is complicated by the fact that it is a Scottish Office matter.
The best that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I shall ensure that the matters that he has raised are placed before my colleagues in the Scottish Office. However, I must point out something that must be obvious to the House: if the report is published on 5 March, one can immediately envisage the great difficulties that would arise, in terms of the need for parliamentary counsel to draft the necessary legislation and for the means to be found by which both Houses of Parliament could deal with such a measure, however much good will and support there was for it, before the dissolution of the House. I am not prejudging when that might be; I do not know. But, even with the best will in the world, I suspect that it might be difficult to achieve what he is asking of the House.
Having said that—and it is only fair to point it out—I shall ensure that my Scottish Office colleagues are well aware of the matters raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and shall see what response we can give. I see no reason why my Department cannot be as sympathetic and helpful as possible in that regard.
In replying to this brief debate, I shall re-emphasise a number of matters so that we know where we stand. The regulations deal specifically with cases where there is no longer an employer available or extant against whom someone with one of the conditions in question can take action. That was the closely defined aim of the regulations when they were first promulgated by the last Labour Government in their dying moments. We must remember that because it answers some of the questions asked by hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.
We are talking about cases of defined industrial disease —those which qualify for disablement benefit under the Social Security Acts—so the intention of the Pneunoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 and the regulations flowing from it were closely defined from the start. That is why it is relatively difficult for those who would seek to extend the scope or the intention of the Act. We have to return to the Act, as we always have to do in the House, to remind ourselves of its original intention.
In reply to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), let me say that if someone's case is rejected by the medical board in the first place he has the right to appeal to the medical appeals tribunal. In case anyone thinks that that is some sort of facile arrangement, I must say that 38 per

cent. of such appeals are successful. It is a genuine appeal mechanism. The answer to many people who find themselves frustrated by the fact that the board will not recognise their condition, as is required by the regulations, is that the appeal tribunal route is open to them. I always tell my constituents to use the appeal process if it is there, and if 38 per cent. of applicants are successful that demonstrates that it is a proper appeals route.
The hon. Member for Stretford asked me whether there was a cash limit. The answer is no. My Department will meet all claims in full if they fulfil the conditions laid down by the regulations. There is not, has not been and, as far as I am concerned, never will be any suggestion of a cash limitation. I hope that I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest on that.
In answer to the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), I confirm that a further study into emphysema commenced in October 1991. We expect the results some time later this year. I cannot, and would not in any circumstances, undertake to seek to lean on or influence the body carrying out the study. It is an independent statutory body, set up precisely to be independent of people such as myself, and if the hon. Gentleman were to reflect on it he would not want such a body to be unduly influenced by Ministers. Although that influence might well be benign in some cases, I am sure that he can imagine others in which it might not be so benign. However, I shall undertake to ensure that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which is carrying out the study, is aware of this debate so that it can take into account the points made by the hon. Member for Castleford and Pontefract and by his colleagues, especially the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). In that way hon. Members' deliberations will be taken into account by those conducting the study. That is the best I can do and I do not want to go further by even implying that there would be any ministerial influence on a statutory independent body.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) who raised similar points should be assured that we will study them closely.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight mentioned mesothelioma. Could the Department of Employment ensure that the total knowledge that resides in the Department of Health and the MRC is taken into account? When I made inquiries before I put forward the Effect of Death on Damages (Scotland) Bill, I learnt that there is a great deal of knowledge in various parts of Britain and in the Government machine. However, that knowledge has not been brought together. A proper assessment should be made of the consequences of the disease over a long period. The incidence of that disease has not yet peaked, and that relates to what my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said about delay. I hope that the Minister can assure me that a serious study of the disease will be made.

Mr. Forth: I give that assurance gladly. The object of this debate is not just to consider the regulations, but to enable hon. Members to express their views. Officials in my Department and others can then study what has been said and follow that up. Where a reply is necessary, I shall give one. I hope that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr.


Dalyell) can confirm that I do that—I hope unfailingly. We shall consider any request for matters to be reviewed to see what can be done under the terms of the regulations.

Mr. Dalyell: Could any further study also include the work of the Scottish Trades Union Congress and Mr. Bill Spiers? The STUC has a great deal of case history at its headquarters in Woodland drive, in Glasgow, which is within the keeping of Bill Spiers. That case history would be extremely valuable, because the STUC, of all organisations, has campaigned, to its credit, for a long time on this issue.

Mr. Forth: It matters not whether that case history is made available as a result of a request from the hon. Gentleman or my officials. I see no reason why such contact should not be possible.

Mr. Rogers: Given that some special pleadings have been made, will the Minister ensure that work of SPAID and Nancy Tait, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and me, is also taken into account? When the Minister and I were colleagues in the European Parliament we passed regulations relating to the use of asbestos in productive processes in order to combat asbestosis. At that time I discovered that SPAID and Nancy Tait had the best body of clinical and case history anywhere in the world. That lady needs to be consulted.

Mr. Forth: I will ask my officials to consider the best sources of information and the best way in which to utilise them.

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Mr. Forth: I shall give way once more, but I sense a growing impatience around me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and I am sure that hon. Members will understand if I ask that the hon. Gentleman's intervention should be the last.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister, especially given what he has just said. I would not have thought that there was any question of a vote on the regulations. I am grateful to the Minister for what he said about SPAID and Nancy Tait, but we regret that that good lady, whose husband, a post office engineer, died from asbestosis, has had to do something. Irrespective of party, we believe that such action should have been the responsibility of the Department of Employment, the Minister of Health and the Minister for Social Security. Great though the work of SPAID is, alas, it should not have had to have been undertaken by that great and good lady through that voluntary organisation.

Mr. Forth: That could be said of so much in public life. The hon. Gentleman may wish that all good things flowed from Government. That is not so and, I suspect, never will be so. We rely, rightly, in many ways on individuals and bodies, voluntary groups and others, to carry matters forward, and I regard that as a healthy sign. I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to anyone, including the lady in question, doing similar work. They deserve our recognition and praise.
I hope that I have answered the points raised in the debate and persuaded the House to support the regulations. I shall be looking to my Department and others to follow up the various points made by hon. Members.
Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.

PETITION

Redmire Quarry, Wensleydale

Mr. William Hague: I have the honour to present a humble but weighty petition signed in a two-week period by 7,049 people principally from in and around Wensleydale in my constituency. The petition is supported by eight local organisations, being the Wensleydale Environmental Supporters, the Wensleydale Railway Association, the Wensleydale Rotary Club, the Wensleydale and Swaledale branches of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Cleveland and North Yorkshire branches of Transport 2000 and the Yorkshire Dales Society.
It relates to the intention of British Steel to transport 1,400 tonnes of limestone daily from Redmire quarry in Wensleydale to the British Steel Teesside works by road rather than by rail, as at present, and it expresses concern about road safety, traffic congestion and the future of the environment. It states the opposition of the local community to the planned transfer from rail to road of the freight.
The petition adds:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House urge the Secretary of State to make representations to British Steel that it shall not proceed with its declared intention to transfer limestone shipments between Redmire and Redcar from rail to road transport and to ensure that British Rail actively promotes the use of the railway from Northallerton to Redmire for both freight and passenger traffic.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. John Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Mr. Keith Vaz: I feel privileged tonight to raise in the House the case of my constituent, John Hall, of Shetland road, Leicester. I have known John Hall for seven years. He was among the first people I met when I moved to Leicester. I would never have believed that one day I would be standing in the House of Commons, telling the forum of the nation about his case.
John Hall is a brave man. Like millions of his fellow citizens, he has served the nation as a member of our armed forces. He comes from an ordinary family, the kind of family that is the backbone of this country. His wife, Marilyn, is a local justice of the peace and has stood by him during the last few difficult years. She is a woman of courage and I admire her greatly. He has three sons, Colin, Ian and Mark. He and his family have served the people of Leicester well with their various civic duties and the city of Leicester is with them tonight.
For any person to take on the might of the Ministry of Defence is a daunting task, but John Hall is not alone. As a nuclear test veteran, he stands in the shoes of about 22,000 other veterans and their families. He is seen as a test case for the veterans' cause.
The failure of the Ministry of Defence to satisfy the veterans' plea for justice is a stain on the good name of the British armed forces. To make people who were prepared to give their lives for this country campaign for what should be a voluntary act by a grateful nation shows the contempt, spitefulness and wilful neglect of those who have closed the door on compensation.
To treat our veterans in a worse way than the veterans of America, Australia or New Zealand is outrageous. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised the matter on many occasions. I particularly wish to acknowledge the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), and my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), as well as the efforts of Conservative Members, including the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) is in the Chamber tonight. Each of those and many more hon. Members have a constituency interest in the issue.
I also commend the tireless work of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, Ken McGinley, its chairman, and its committees. Many feature articles have highlighted the veterans' plight in newspapers as different as The People and The Independent.
John Hall's campaign has been remarkable by any standards. It has included numerous meetings with Defence Ministers and shadow Ministers, including the shadow Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition. A year ago I met the Prime Minister in his room in this House, and my hon. Friends and I have raised the matter during Prime Minister's Question Time and at other times. Numerous early-day motions have been signed by hundreds of hon. Members and last week I presented a petition with some 10,000 signatures in

support of the veterans' cause. Tonight, we bring the campaign back to the House and ask the Minister to act now, before more veterans die.
John Hall is 53 years old. He was born in Burnhope in county Durham and moved to Leicester in 1961. He joined the Royal Air Force in 1956. He was an electrical mechanic and served with 76 squadron of the RAF, which did all the sampling in all the tests in the 1950s. The squadron was responsible for flying through the bomb clouds picking up samples of radiated particles.
John Hall was employed as an aircraft electrician serving the Canberra bombers used in that process. He served at RAF Edinburgh Field from 8 October 1957 until 19 August 1958, during which time he was detached with the squadron to Christmas island in the Pacific ocean from 3 March until 19 May 1958 for Operation Grapple Y. It had gone there for the H-bomb test that took place on 28 April 1958.
John Hall is currently being treated for high-grade, B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma of the centribalistic type. It was orginally diagnosed as hairy-cell leukaemia. He worked on aircraft immediately after they returned to the airfield. He was given gloves and a cotton overall to wear, but no other protective clothing. On Christmas island, most of the aircraft that he worked on had flown through the nuclear cloud several times. Once, he worked on a plane that had not been through a decontamination centre to be washed off.
In 1984, John Hall's wife read in the Leicester Mercury of a meeting of service men who had taken part in the nuclear tests of the 1950s. John and Marilyn Hall decided to go because they felt that it was important that there should be a thorough investigation into the servicemen's health problems.
In 1989, John Hall found that he was losing weight and suffering from a shortage of energy. He went to the doctor, who said that he was anaemic and he was then sent to the Royal Infirmary, where he was given blood tests and transfusions. He was put on interferon injections every day for the first six months, then every other day and, until April 1991, three times a week. He now receives chemotherapy and is on drugs known in the trade as "pace bombs" and "chops", That consists of three or four large and painful injections in his arm. I pay tribute to the care and professionalism of the doctors and nurses, and other workers who look after John Hall when he goes to the Royal Infirmary for treatment.
He left work in 1989 as he found that he did not have the energy to do physical work. He needed pain-killing pills, which caused him great problems. Not only could he no longer work, but he could no longer dig his garden or repair his car. He used to love going on walking holidays, but he was unable to walk far without becoming very tired. His appearance has changed dramatically in the past seven years.
When the Ministry of Defence looks into cases that have been brought to its attention by hon. Members, it should take direct evidence from the participants. That has not happened in John Hall's case, or in any other case. At the very least, the Minister should arrange for John Hall to meet MOD officials so that they can take direct evidence from him. They have, to date, relied on written submissions and, as the Minister knows, the delay has been intolerable.
The Minister will rely in his reply on a report that was prepared for the Prime Minister when he wrote to me on


6 February 1992. The report states that the ground crew of 76 squadron were not subject to radiation. How is it, then, that Air Vice Marshal Wilfred Oulton, the task force commander, could write in his book, "The Christmas Island Cracker":
No personnel, other than the air and ground crews of the Canberra sampling aircraft, should ever be exposed to any radiation.
On pages 130 and 131 of the book he adds:
The aircraft used for Mosaic and Buffalo might still be too hot to use safely in Grapple or even to stage through international airports like Nandi. Likewise, some of the crews of both air and ground might have reached or be near to their safe limit of exposure to radiation.
How can the MOD ask an independent consultant, as it did in John Hall's case, to make a decision if that consultant is told in the first place that there is no exposure to radiation? One has the conclusions before the evidence is examined.
The report went on to state that there was a 48-hour delay to allow the radioactive material to decay, there being no exception to the rule. But John Hall is emphatic that the men were never told to restrict repairs to maintenance schedules. If a fault occurred which required replacement of an unscheduled component, it would be carried out immediately. He remembers the decontamination centre to have been 50 yards from the 76 lines.
When I met the Prime Minister on 12 March 1991, he demonstrated great concern and sympathy for the plight of John Hall. The Minister of State will recall that the Prime Minister told me of his own knowledge of the suffering of cancer victims as his brother-in-law had died of cancer. I showed him a letter from the son of a nuclear test veteran who had died of cancer, who himself had the illness. In my view, the Prime Minister was clearly moved by that. I told him that the second National Radiological Protection Board report was to be published and I urged his intervention to ensure that that was done speedily. He asked the Minister to do that.
The Prime Minister had already written to me on 29 January 1991 saying:
We hope that its results will be available by the end of the year.
That was in 1991, and the report has still not been published. Can the Minister say when it will be published? We should also like all the reports that were prepared on operation Grapple Y to be placed in the Library of the House, including those that have hitherto not been published.
While we wait, nuclear test veterans continue to die. It is not just them who suffer, but their families. Last week, I received a letter from Mavis Gardner, the widow's representative for the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association. She writes of the anxiety, hardship and distress caused by delay. She says:
I do feel that the widows should be remembered when our veterans' cases are brought up, as they are the ones who are suffering after their loss. We have nearly 300 widows on our books, but there must be many more that we do not know about. Even some of the widows have died, but what has happened to their families? We shall never know.
Four weeks ago, the Government announced that the special provision already made for those with haemophilia and HIV would be extended to those who had been infected with HIV as a result of national health service transfusions or tissue transfer in the United Kingdom. The

payments will also apply to any of their spouses, partners and children to whom their infection may have been passed on.
The Secretary of State for Health, in a written reply, spoke of compensation being granted because of those people's very special circumstances. Three weeks ago, we read of proposals to compensate people suffering from cancer because of their work on Britain's nuclear submarines and the nuclear deterrent. That was to be on a no-fault basis. Yesterday, in a written answer, the Secretary of State for Defence presented what he described as radical and imaginative proposals to give service men and ex-service men—despite the mobility required of them —new and impressive housing opportunities.
All those announcements show that, where there is a political will, there is a way. On 28 February 1991, the Prime Minister made the following comments about the performance of our armed forces during the Gulf conflict:
Our forces deserve the highest praise for the courage and professionalism that they have displayed—in the air, on land and at sea … Here in our country we may be justifiably proud of our British forces and their commanders … The whole nation is proud of them, proud of their families and proud that, through their valour, freedom and justice have prevailed. It has, on this occasion, been a victory for what is right."—[Official Report, 28 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 1118.]
Are we proud of John Hall, and of what he and others did in the service of this country? Is the Minister proud of him? I spoke to him tonight. He has just come out of hospital after being there for three days. His spirits are high: he is eager to continue his civic duties. He is sorry, and I am sorry, that he is not well enough to be here to watch the debate.
It is in the nature of Governments to say no, and in the nature of Oppositions to demand everything yesterday, but this is not a campaign founded on ideology—this is a campaign born out of principle, of men and women who have right on their side, and who claimed and reached the moral high ground far too long ago. The Prime Minister's words show that we must be proud of people like John Hall, and the thousands of other nuclear test veterans in this country. They, indeed, have right on their side. Tonight, the Minister could right a great wrong, and award John Hall and the other nuclear test veterans the compensation that they so richly deserve.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on securing the debate. He has, over the years, campaigned—along with other hon. Members—for compensation for those personnel who participated in the United Kingdom's nuclear test programme; now, more specifically, he has raised the sad case of his constituent John Hall.
The question of the nuclear test participants is not a new one; it has been discussed in the House at length. The hon. Member is well aware that the principal difficulty here is that of establishing a causal link between participation in the programme and any subsequent illness. I must emphasise at the outset that there is no such evidence, either in the test participants generally or, more specifically, in the hon. Gentleman's constituent's case.
Considerable concern has been expressed by those who participated in the nuclear test programme, their relatives and hon. Members about the nuclear weapons test


programme conducted in the south Pacific in the 1950s, and the suggestion that those who took part in the tests have now developed illnesses as a result of their participation. The concern is understandable, especially in the light of the widespread publicity given to the sometimes misleading and unfounded allegations that have been made in the past.
The House will be aware that cancer is a common cause of death in the developed world, with some 20 per cent. of deaths being attributed to the disease. Tragically—and it is a sad and inescapable fact—there are over 100,000 cancer-related deaths a year in this country alone. It has been estimated, as I have said in the House before, that some 1,000 of these deaths may be caused by the various natural sources of radiation present all around us. Many participants in the test programme, therefore, would by now be suffering from cancer, or would have died, if they had spent their service entirely in this country and had never gone to the south Pacific.
Before I address the points raised by the hon. Member, I should like to remind the House that the general nuclear safety standards of the tests were in accordance with the standards in force in the nuclear industry today. All individuals who were liable to be exposed to radiation were issued with dosimeters to record the radiation experienced, and those records were kept. The safety regulations in force were consistent with the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection and advice from the Medical Research Council. Safety precautions were properly monitored and stringently implemented.
While we remain confident that the safety precautions were adequate and that participants were not subjected to any significant health hazards, we have been anxious to alleviate the fears expressed by some of those who participated. Bearing in mind the difficulties in determining causation, it was decided that there should be a study to provide up-to-date and reliable information to show if a problem existed and, if so, its extent. In October 1983, the independent and internationally respected institution, the National Radiological Protection Board, was commissioned to undertake a study of the participants and investigate any correlation with radiation exposure. The study, as the House is aware, compared the mortality and cancer incidence of more than 22,000 men who participated in the tests with a similar group of service men and civilians who were not involved in the tests.
The study, the results of which were published in the British Medical Journal, concluded that participation in the tests had had no detectable effect on the participants' life expectancy. Nor did the study establish a causal relationship between the incidence of cancer and participation. In particular, there was no evidence of increased radiation dose, contrary to what might have been expected if those cancers were radiation induced. The study did indicate a small but statistically significant increase in the incidence of certain leukaemias and multiple myeloma in test participants compared with the control group. The control group, however, exhibited an extraordinarily low incidence of these two cancers compared with the average for England and Wales. The NRPB concluded that these differences were likely to be due to chance. Internationally accepted estimates of risk

from radiation predict that not one person would be expected to die as a result of exposure to radiation from the United Kingdom's test programme.
I must emphasise that the NRPB study shows no correlation in the incidence of the cancer—high-grade, B cell, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma—from which Mr. Hall is suffering and participation in the test programme.
The Government regard the result of the NRPB study as vindicating their view that the safety precautions adopted during the test programme were effective.

Mr. Vaz: When does the Minister expect that the second report that is currently being investigated will be published? He will recall the meeting with the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's letter to me. May we be told when the second report is likely to be published?

Mr. Hamilton: I am just coming to that question.
The NRPB did, however, recommend that observations on the groups of participants and controls should be maintained for a further 10 years. The Government gladly accepted the suggestion. The NRPB has, therefore, continued to monitor the cancer and mortality incidence of the participants and will publish an updated study this year covering the first five years of this 10-year extension. I know that the hon. Member for Leicester, East wants a more accurate forecast of when the five-year study will come out. I shall write to him about that.
The hon. Gentleman said that he has taken up the case with a number of Members of the Opposition, including the Leader of the Opposition. I should be interested to know whether the right hon. Gentleman undertook, if he became Prime Minister, to pay compensation to the nuclear test veterans. I should be more than happy to give way to the hon. Member for Leicester, East if he would like to enlighten the House on that important point. I see that the hon. Gentleman is silent and I can tell him why: it is because, of the 22,000 test veterans, one would expect, I am afraid, some 20 per cent. to die of cancer. Therefore, by the law of averages, more than 4,000 nuclear test veterans may suffer from cancer. If all of them are to be paid compensation, the bill will be substantial.

Mr. Vaz: The Leader of the Opposition is not the Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence and therefore does not have responsibility. We shall seek the same pledge from the next Labour Government as we are seeking from this Government.

Mr. Hamilton: That is the most unutterable nonsense that I have heard in my life. Why has not the hon. Gentleman obtained a pledge from the Leader of the Opposition? He can say that if he takes office he will fulfil the pledge to compensate all the nuclear test veterans, and he can make that pledge today. The hon. Member for Leicester, East well knows that the right hon. Gentleman cannot make that pledge because the cost to the taxpayer would be unbelievable. It would open the door to compensation to many people who may have cancer through natural causes, and I am afraid that the reality is that a large percentage of people die from cancer and nobody knows the causes. As I have said, there is no causal link between Mr. Hall and the tests on Christmas island in the 1950s.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of compensation for his constituent, Mr. John Hall, with the Prime Minister last year, and he referred to that in his remarks.


At the Prime Minister's request, the Ministry undertook to investigate Mr. Hall's case. The hon. Member for Leicester, East is aware from the Prime Minister's reply of 6 February and from the report attached to it that the initial difficulty in Mr. Hall's case, as with so many others who participated in the test programme, is that there is simply no evidence of his having been exposed to any radiation.
Mr. Hall served with the Royal Air Force as an electrical mechanic. He was not a member of the active handling flight whose task it was to carry out the aircraft decontamination process. There are no records of film badges having been issued to him, nor is there any record of him being exposed to radiation—and we do not expect there to be. By radiation, I mean occupational radiation. As a member of the public, Mr. Hall will have received natural background radiation amounting to 100 mSv or more over his lifetime.
In the absence of recorded levels of exposure to occupational radiation, only through the statistical studies of the NRPB can we determine whether there is an elevated incidence of radiation-linked diseases among the test participants involving the possibility of a causal link. That is not to say, however, that we shall consider no claims without dosimeter records. It has been repeatedly made clear that we shall consider any claim where any evidence of exposure to ionising radiation can be adduced.

Mr. Vaz: The Minister says that the door is still open provided evidence can be submitted and examined. One of the problems that I highlighted in my speech is that Mr. Hall has never been interviewed by his officials. Will the Minister please agree to allow Mr. Hall to meet officials so that these questions can be put directly to him? One of the problems is that it took a long time to get a reply from the Prime Minister because we relied on written submissions. If he will agree to Mr. Hall being interviewed by officials, many of the problems of the case could be solved. Will he agree to that?

Mr. Hamilton: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about that. I do not understand how an interview could help because we are talking about the types of cancer from which Mr. Hall suffers. The point is that the NRPB report did not identify Mr. Hall's cancer as being caused by the tests, but I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman on that.
As the report given to the hon. Gentleman makes clear, Mr. Hall has produced no such evidence and, indeed, the only specific claims that have been made were to The Independent newspaper, which reported on the case on 24 January 1990. Nevertheless, Mr. Hall's case was looked at in considerable depth and a detailed report was

forwarded by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Gentleman. From the report he will have seen that, although there was no evidence of exposure to radiation, it was necessary to postulate various situations —based on Mr. Hall's allegations in The Independent—from which hypothetical dose levels, together with Mr. Hall's medical records, it was possible, using the internationally accepted methodology, to calculate the radiation-induced risk—called the probability of causation—to determine the likelihood of Mr. Hall's cancer being caused by doses at those hypothetical levels.
The report to which I refer is, of necessity, rather lengthy and technical and I therefore do not intend to go into great detail during this debate as it will mean little to those who have not seen it. I can assure the House, however, that all possible hypothetical scenarios were investigated and the probability of causation assessed. In each hypothetical case, the dose levels were so low that there could be no reasonable inference of a causal link and therefore no basis for awarding compensation.
Mr. Hall, like many ex-servicemen, has been awarded a war pension by the Department of Social Security. This was from 5 October 1989, on the basis of a diagnosis of leukaemia, as the hon. Gentleman said. That is one of the varieties of leukaemia of which the NRPB report showed a small increase of incidence among test participants compared with the control group. Proof is not essential for a claim to succeed under the war pension scheme and the claimant is given the benefit of any reasonable doubt concerning attribution to service.
As I mentioned earlier, the control group itself had an unusually low incidence of these particular diseases, the differences probably being due to chance, according to the NRPB. Certainly the NRPB found no evidence of a link with radiation. However, it is not necessary to show any such link to receive a war pension. Subsequently, Mr. Hall's diagnosis has, after the issue of a war pension, been revised to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The Department of Social Security, however, has no wish to review Mr. Hall's award of a war pension now that the diagnosis has been revised.
In conclusion, I must emhasise that the Government are ready to pay compensation wherever their legal liability is established and where there is firm evidence to show, on balance of probabilities, that ill health is being suffered as a result of participation in the test programme.
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-three minutes to One o'clock.